John Andrews is a Competitive Webmaster and Search Engine Optimization Consultant in Seattle, Washington. This is John Andrews blog on issues of interest to the SEO community and competitive webmasters. Want to know more?  Competitive Web & SEO
November 19th, 2008 by john andrews

“Just Make Good Content” is Bullsh*t

The long running debate about White Hat vs. Black Hat search engine optimization (SEO) continues. It is getting harder and harder for the scammers to hide. The more they scam the world, the more money they make, but over time the impact of those scams starts to show. With exposure comes embarrassment, but embarrassment rarely bothers scammers.

Most scammers will ignore¬† criticism, continuing to grab the cash “while the vault door is open“. After all, they got where they are by exploit, so further exploit is easily attempted with little emotional effort. We heard today that the “big 3″ auto makers came to Washington DC to beg for bailout money, flying private luxury jets costing an estimated $20,000 per seat.¬† Do these executives need a bailout? Sure they do. Their companies are close to failure. Have they benefited from taxpayer benevolence in the past? Sure they have. Jobs are at stake. There are so many issues at play, that if these scammers just keep pushing with a straight face, they are likely to get at least some free money.

Just like AIG did… the guys who begged for a bailout and then, after receiving it, took a luxury vacation (also via private jets) at taxpayer expense. Scammers do very well these days.

So who are the real scammers in SEO? I’m going to list some of them:

  • Google
  • Yahoo!
  • White Hat SEOs

That’s right. I called Google and the White Hat SEOs the scammers. It is my belief that “just make good content” is bullshit put forth by scamming search engines cashing in on our collective productivity. “Just Make Good Content” has never been true. As publishers believed this claim, they put out creative content for free, while spending a fortune to create it. Photographers, editors, journalists…everyone continued to contribute productivity to the creation of that “good content”. But have they been paid? This vault door of the web has been open to search engines for years now, and the scam is slowly becoming obvious as Yahoo! and Google struggle with unusual economic conditions. Just as auto makers and banks have suffered, search engines will suffer because advertising spend tracks the economies stress, and search engines make their money from advertising. The creators, all along, continue to contribute content (work harder, actually), largely for “free”.

Just make good content, and you don’t need specialized SEO tactics” say the search engines. The mantra is repeated by The Followers, including self-proclaimed “White Hat SEO” practitioners. Unfortunately, those White Hat SEO people are part of the scam. They are usually working on the client’s dime, helping to publish the client’s content to help feed the Google beast. Often they repeat the “Good Content” mantra as a form of SEO strategy, encouraging the client to invest more productivity (or to pay for others to create it) as a means of gaining search traffic. And it a degree. Of course it does. The scammers (the search engines) have to make sure it works. It’s part of the con. The Long Tail is part of the con. And they all need to propagate the con. More content trumps less content… for now, as long as you consider long tail traffic a success metric.

Did you know many self-professed “White Hat” search marketers outsource their actual SEO work to others who are not so White? No big surprise there, because we all know a successful business involves sales and marketing as well as operations. If “White Hat” SEos are hiring gray hat or other hat SEOs to do the actual work, well…who’s been fooled?

A few years ago Jason Ca1canis stood up at an SEO conference (where he was an invited speaker) and proclaimed “SEO is Bullshit“. He then created a low-quality, pure SEO play along the “just create good content” strategy. The scam was well done… a few years later we still see his low quality content earning profitable search traffic. Search engines got the message…Jason was joining the scam, would not rock the boat (although he clearly could have), and was willing to sacrifice whatever integrity he might have had at that time towards the Open Vault Door cause. Everybody wins, right? Search engines make money, Jason makes money…the scam continues to evolve. The web didn’t get an amazing new information resource, but nobody cares.

Today we have Yahoo! suffering much like the Big 3 automakers are suffering – under bad management. Yahoo! has Flickr and Zimbra and many other valuable properties. Yahoo! has advertisers, and Yahoo! has the #2 search engine. But that’s not enough… they think they need a bailout of sorts. Based on what I have seen, they need an attitude adjustment more than anything else.

Meanwhile,”Just Make Good Content” takes on a new form at Yahoo!. Take a look at the “good content” apparently created by, republished (I assume sans permission) on “Yahoo! Answers” where it ranks highly in search engines and earns money for Yahoo! and its partners. The article is here and Yahoo! answers republishes it in context here Oh sure that’s “user generated content” and we can’t possibly expect Yahoo! to police everything posted by users, can we? (see my list of ways scammers handle criticism, above).

It looks as if created and publishes many articles of “good content”, probably on the advice of a White Hat SEO. That is a ton of content for an otherwise small web site with little editorial input into the consumer information space. I’d guess it was expensive to produce. Can you imagine a company’s marketing department recommending a 300 page printed brochure? This web content will be even more expensive to defend, as search engines like Yahoo! and Google enable copyright infringers to profit (while sharing in those profits). Is really expected to file DMCA actions for every article illegally copied into Yahoo! answers? It’s all part of the scam. Just one small example, of which there are many.

Last month Google settled with book publishers, and will be publishing scanned out-of-print books pretty soon. That original scam didn’t go so well, but still holds promise. First, Google apparently paid libraries for access to scanning books, but didn’t get away with publishing them because they were sued. Now they’ve settled. I have to ask though, is a $125 million dollar settlement really enough to fund future generations of writers seeking publishers? Or are the book publishers cashing out? We don’t know the complete terms Google got when it agreed to pay to play with copyrighted but out-of-print books, but there is a back story. And once again, Google shafts the creators (artists) in order to pay the business people (Google and publishers). Those books are out of print not because there is no demand for them, but because publishers choose not to reprint them. Authors may want their works reprinted, and readers may want to buy copies, but publishers choose not to reprint unless they will sell huge numbers of books. So even though it is “out of print”, it is not worthless.

This is another case of Google stifling creativity. What we really need is a print on demand industry that can accommodate the long tail demand for short run prints of copyrighted works. Print on demand, for example. Just because the publishers aren’t willing to invest in their own futures, should they be given the right to sell that future to Google for $125 million? Maybe Google will figure out a way to micro-distribute… but that will be a first for Google in the “charge for access to content” department. So far they have wanted everything to be “free”. This really sounds more like one of those methods by which scammers respond to criticisms – step up, acknowledge the problem, make a deal that can be exploited later, and move on to scam anew in the now “authorized” environment.

Some might think this post is harsh…calling Google and White Hat SEOs “scammers”. Those same people will probably cite this post as “BlackHat” or supportive of Black Hat SEO. Whatever. They miss the point. I fully expect that one day, after Google has executed enough of these “contracts” that try and bind whole classes of rights holders, she will promote some seemingly grass roots effort to revise copyright laws, using something like that stupid “you have no privacy – get over it” argument. Everything else is part of the setup. The Black Hat SEOs I know understand fully that they are exploiting time-limited opportunities, just like Google does. They are far more realistic than the White Hat SEOs, who seem to think the search engines are paving a golden road to a bright new media world. They are (paving a new road), but it’s not (bright).

But there is hope. As I have admonished my blog readers before, before you support copy-left or some other “information wants to be free” endeavor, think through the consequences. Before you proclaim yourself a “White Hat SEO” and preach the “More content! More content!” mantra, think about how things really work in our world.

The photo here shows a 16 year old Whatcom Warrior youth ice hockey player crashing through a West Vancouver Midget opponent, breaking his stick in half on the way through. I captured that action in a dimly lit, low-budget ice rink. I needed an expensive glass lens, an expensive high-speed camera, and plenty of time dedicated to learning to shoot amateur ice hockey. When a news outfit places a photographer onto the scene, that photographer is backed by purchased equipment (self insured) a processing lab, and a fraction of an editorial team. Hopefully a few photos like this one tell the story of the game. But who pays for the equipment and time? If you copy this photo and spread it on the web, Google makes money from that. But Google doesn’t fund the photographer’s equipment, and Google doesn’t buy that 16 year old kid a replacement stick ($175). (So if you’re flush and feeling generous, consider buying an ad placement or making a donation to the WCAHA so the kids can keep playing!

I am 100% in favor of the new web economy disrupting systems that don’t work, but first we need to make sure we the people survive the transition. “Just Make Good Content” isn’t paying the real bills for many of the very real people formerly employed in the content generation businesses. It’s not improving society, and it’s not enriching lives beyond those of Google and White Hat SEOs. It’s exploitative of the majority, to the extent that the content does not strategically position a business to grow in a healthy fashion. More content creates noise, which begets more noise. Black Hat and non-White Hat SEOs execute in that environment, helping users find what they actually want amongst the noise. They are actually helping society. So of the SEO “flavors”, which is more exploitative? White Hat by far.

So what is the “take away”?

Personally I’d like you to Just Make Good Content… because as you invest your resources into making content you will suffer competitively, leaving the rest of us to eat your lunch. It’s clear that the current model is only sustainable for the market leader and it’s soldiers. So keep paying those “White Hat SEO” people, because the more of your marketing budget you spend with them, the less you have to compete with me and the Black Hats. I’ll hope Google is keep busy “managing”those Black Hats, leaving the rest of us to succeed. And I don’t mind the White Hat’s getting rich, karma being what it is an all that.

If we follow this “make good content” path eventually the search engines will fail to deliver meaningful search results, either because of the excessive noise or because they enjoy such a monopoly they find market exploitation irresistably more rewarding. At that point the White Hat SEOs won’t know what to do anymore, and the creators/artists will refuse to work for the nickels offered. The web will become the cesspool Google says it already is. Clearly, as good as it is, Yahoo! won’t be around much longer. And once search isn’t TheAnswer for everyone using the Internet, maybe we’ll finally be able to break up the staid XHTML web we’ve been stuck with for 10 years, with some true innovation.

But that’s just my wish for the future. You could alternatively refuse to hire any SEO that claims to be “White Hat”, remain diligent on the copyright front until someone steps into the middle with sensible ideas for helping creators benefit from their unique contributions to society, and lobby your local representatives to do the same. Insist that your content provider assume liability for copyright infringement, in writing. And hire an SEO who claims to work for YOUR goals, instead of the search engines’ goals. Learn to manage your business risk like everyone else, instead of hopping on transient opportunities the Google/Black Hat way. Perhaps, with that balanced approach and with legions of small businesses finally accepting that they are incompetition with Google, our artists can find their feet in the new economy and continue to contribute to society. Hell, given enough time, maybe they’ll all find ways to participate in the web after all. That’d be great. The White Hat ex-SEOs can assume the general web contractor roles like nature intended, and we competitive webmasters can quietly go back to work.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine
November 2nd, 2008 by john andrews

Reminder: Set Your Clocks and Check Your SSL Certificates

Here in Seattle we follow Daylight Savings Time so today is the day to “fall back” by resetting the clocks 1 hour back. Because here have been so many “irregularities” in IT world regarding the calculation of Daylight Savings Time, it is also a great idea to quick-check your various servers and systems to verify they have the time “right”. The biggest cost of incorrect server time is not the absolute time issue (we often don’t care when a clock is off) bt the potential to make bigger mistakes by assuming time stamps are correct. Better to spend a few minutes making sure things are copacetic now, than get caught in a “gotcha” later because someone’s time stamp was actually off.

It is also a god time to re-evaluate your choice of SSL Certificates, for a few reasons. First, we humans tend to forget that SSL certificates expire, so we let them go until we get warnings that the SSL cert has expired. There’s no real god reason to work that way, if this simple reminder can get you to check your expiration date and execute any needed renewals now. We reset our clocks twice a year, so why not check your SSL certificate expiration dates twice a year? This is a particularly good time to do it, in advance of the shopping season. I am sure many of you will remember stories of merchants dealing with expired SSL certs last year during holiday crunch time. For homework, figure out when those annual renewals expire again this year ;-)

Another issue to consider is the compatibility of your particular SSL cert. I run several versions of most popular browsers routinely, and I am seeing more and more “invalid certificate” warnings these days, even from certificates bought through respectable vendors. Some advise that the difference in costs between the various SSL cert deals is purely a reflection of the dollar transaction insurance provided by the certificate vendor. A cert with $250,000 insurance does cost more than a cert with $100,000 insurance. But, there is also a cost associated with broad browser compatibility. Not all SSL certificate vendors provide certs that verify all browsers, and It seems certificate vendors may now be cutting corners by dropping support for older browsers.. I won’t name names here but you should check your certificate’s compatibility. If a user gets an invalid certificate message ater clicking “checkout now” you are likely to lose consumer confidence at best, if not a sale every time.
So Happy Daylight Savings Sunday: be sure to check your clocks and check your SSL certs.

★★ Click to Share!    Digg this     Create a Bookmark     Add to Newsvine

Competitive Webmaster

Wonder how to be more competitive at some aspect of the web? Submit your thoughts.

SEO Secret

Not Post Secret

Click HERE


John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John




comments policy



Recent Posts: ★ SEO Industry Growth, Widespread Failure, and SEO Industry Challenge ★ Do you want to WIN, or just “Be the Winner”? ★ 503: GONE ★ Cloud Storage ★ Identity Poetry for Marketers ★ PR is where the Money Is ★ Google is an Addict ★ When there are no Jobs ★ Google Stifles Innovation, starts Strangling Itself ★ Flying the SEO Helicopter ★ Penguin 2.0 Forewarning Propaganda? ★ Dedicated Class “C” IP addresses for SEO ★ New Domain Extensions (gTLDs) Could Change Everything ★ Kapost Review ★ Aaron Von Frankenstein ★ 2013 is The Year of the Proxy ★ Preparing for the Google Apocalypse ★ Rank #1 in Google for Your Name (for a fee) ★ Pseudo-Random Thoughts on Search ★ Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, or a Blog ★ The BlueGlass Conference Opportunity ★ Google Execs Take a Break from Marissa Mayer, Lend Her to Yahoo! ★ Google SEO Guidelines ★ Reasons your Post-Penguin Link Building Sucks ★ Painful Example of Google’s Capricious Do Not Care Attitude 


☆ about

John Andrews is a mobile web professional and competitive search engine optimzer (SEO). He's been quietly earning top rank for websites since 1997. About John

☆ navigation

  • John Andrews and Competitive Webmastering
  • E-mail Contact Form
  • What does Creativity have to do with SEO?
  • How to Kill Someone Else’s AdSense Account: 10 Steps
  • Invitation to Twitter Followers
  • …unrelated: another good movie “Clean” with Maggie Cheung
  • …unrelated: My Hundred Dollar Mouse
  • Competitive Thinking
  • Free SEO for NYPHP PHP Talk Members
  • Smart People
  • Disclosure Statement
  • Google Sponsored SPAM
  • Blog Post ideas
  • X-Cart SEO: How to SEO the X Cart Shopping Cart
  • the nastiest bloke in seo
  • Seattle Domainers Conference
  • Import large file into MySQL : use SOURCE command
  • Vanetine’s Day Gift Ideas: Chocolate Fragrance!
  • SEM Rush Keyword Research
  • ☆ blogroll

  • Bellingham SEO
  • Domain Name Consultant
  • Hans Cave Diving in Mexico
  • Healthcare Search Marketing
  • John Andrews
  • John Andrews SEO
  • SEMPDX Interview
  • SEO Quiz
  • SEO Trophy Phrases
  • SMX Search Marketing Expo
  • T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East 2007
  • TOR
  • ☆ categories

    Competition (39)
    Competitive Intelligence (15)
    Competitive Webmastering (547)
    Webmasters to Watch (4)
    domainers (63)
    Oprah (1)
    photography (3)
    Privacy (16)
    Public Relations (187)
    SEO (398)
    Client vs. SEO (2)
    Link Building (3)
    Search Engines vs. SEO (1)
    SEO SECRETS (11)
    SEO vs. SEO (1)
    ThreadWatch Watching (5)
    Silliness (24)
    Social Media (7)
    society (31)
    Uncategorized (23)

    ☆ archives

  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006