Improving The Reputation Of The SEM Industry

[dannysullivan]

It's not been a good couple of weeks for the reputation of the SEM industry. Some examples:


Seth Godin posts (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2004/07/the_problem_wit.html) recently that "I didn't think that most SEO was worth the money"
Anil Dash also wrote (http://www.dashes.com/anil/2004/06/04/nigritude_ultra) recently, "I've always had a pretty low opinion of the Search Engine Optimization industry. Though there are of course legitimate experts in the field, it seems chock full of people who are barely above spammers, and they taint the image of the whole group."
The allegations (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=431) against Traffic Power no doubt will make many wary of whether they should trust an SEM firm.

I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of great SEO/SEM firms. They do good work, and it's unfortunate that the entire industry gets tarred with the same brush.

What's the solution? Clearly we need to have standards that SEM firms will follow, right? Just like the same standards that PR firms all agree to follow.

Oops. I don't know of any approved standards that all PR firms are supposed to follow. I don't know which resource lists all the "ethical" or "white hat" PR firms. I can tell you that having been a target of PR firms, I've seen a range of responses. I've seen small, tiny agencies have done a great job in getting a message out to me. I've had large, well-known agencies be completely clueless and even do some things that I'd consider to be PR spam.

That's just one example of an industry that lacks standards, yet I don't often see people writing that that all PR is a waste of time or that all PR firms are a rip-off artists.

SEM has gone through downturns in its reputation before, and it will probably go through them again. But personally, I'm tired of the entire industry being beaten up. This is, after all, the industry that almost certainly has generated a significant part of the income that search engines like Yahoo and Google are earning -- in turn making those companies able to offer search for free.

Again, what's the solution? I don't know. I do know that anyone trying to start out and define what's "ethical" begins from a point of weakness. That's because the search engines each define for themselves what they consider to be acceptable. So others trying to say what's right and wrong, on behalf of the entire SEM industry, don't stand on firm ground no matter how good the intentions or even whether they are generally correct. They still cannot speak for the search engines themselves.

That's one reason I didn't think SEMPO should start out trying to set rules, and still don't. If the search engine won't be public in part out of fear, a brand new industry group is supposed to? But as SEMPO is turning a year old, I did recently suggest to the board in my advisory capacity (http://www.sempo.org/sempo-board-of-advisors.php) that perhaps it is time for it to explore some type of solution that involves the search engines themselves.

Perhaps the way to a solution is to ask what's the problem? To me, the problem for the entire SEM industry is that there are clients who don't know who to trust. That means a lost opportunity, both for SEM firms and for search engines themselves, because some of these lost clients would spend money on ads.

OK, how do you know who to trust? One solution would be a blacklist, where search engines publish firms accused of bad behavior. But search engines have been hesitant to do this, as I've written before.

Right, how about a whitelist? Perhaps SEO/SEM firms voluntarily agree to participate with each major search engine in a public reporting service. You'd tell your clients that they can easily check if you've done anything a search engine considers wrong by using a database the search engine provides. If you don't participate, nothing would be published.

So let's say we've got three firms -- ispamlikecrazy.com, pureasthedrivensnow.com and getyouconversions.com.

Ispam doesn't register. They spam, Google acts, but there's no public record of this action. So why bother? A consumer considering ispam could ask ispam why they aren't registered with the Google program, which may spur them to investigate ispam more. In the end, they may still decide they like ispam's aggressive technique -- but at least they can't come back and say they didn't get a warning.

Pure does register. They do nothing to get into trouble, so you can find they've got a clean bill of health.

Getyouconversions does register. Google comes across something really
spammy they've done for a client. Getyou is told that an action report is being filed. Getyou has agreed to accept this as taking part in the program. Getyou can perhaps insert their own response into the report but stay in the program. If potential clients see this, they can explain perhaps they've learned their lesson, and that it can be seen there's no further reports over time. Alternatively, perhaps they can withdraw from the program, putting them in the same situation as ispam.

That's one idea. It's not perfect. In particular, it leave the search engines with the ability to be, as Jill Whalen put it recently (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=76906#76906), "as the boss of me." Jill's a pretty well-known "white hatter," so if she's got reservations, you can only imagine what proud "black hatter" SEOs might think about such ideas.

I have my own reservations about it as well. But the search engines are the boss of us within their own borders, as my Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3344581) article from earlier this year explains more. And for the consumer seeking an SEM firm, this is one of the key issues they want to know: will the work you do get me into trouble with a particular search engine?

Here's a twist to consider. Perhaps the search engines themselves might also take part in a public reporting program. If someone is dinged on public spam reporting they provide, perhaps an appeal could be made to a program that reviews search engine actions. And perhaps such a program could also be used to investigate any wrong-doing that are aimed at search engines -- I think they boosted this particular web site, they failed to act on the clickfraud allegation and so on.

I'd also come back to the whitelist idea I've pitched and stress that it is voluntary. No one would have to take part. It is not even designed to say "good SEM, bad SEM." Instead, it's meant to help potential SEM clients figure out whether a particular firm has done anything wrong with a particular search engine. No doubt, there will be some inherent "goodness" attached to those who participate in the program and have clean records. But right now, everyone is getting a bad rep, frankly, no matter how clean they may claim to be.

So that's the long post. Thoughts on the idea, good or bad? Or even better, completely new ideas on a way to improve the reputation of the SEM industry, in a way that will gain the support of many of those already in it?

[bwelford]

I guess you and I, Danny, were both thinking and writing on this issue about the same time this morning. Your thread is most timely.

I believe no para-legalistic system with "laws", police-ing, outing or whatever will be easy to implement. Any system that tries to prevent bad habits is always tough, if the bad habits can make you money.

I suggest it's better to look for an encouragement system, where folk gradually realize that following Best Practices is the way to succeed. I've set out one way it might be done here (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=77154#77154).

[dannysullivan]

What you describe effectively happens, in some ways. Google (and Yahoo, and others) already have guidelines, and they do pass judgement on pages that don't seem to pass those guidelines. It's also important to note that this does include NOT taking action in some cases. They might find a page using invisible text or even cloaking but still may allow the page to retain, if they ultimately feel it is causing no harm.

What you don't get is the ombudsman idea, that they notify someone that a URL has been removed. That Spam Rules article I referenced suggested that one way this might happen, at least with Google, is to do something similar to DMCA removal notification.

Google in particular, however, has been wary of providing any type of spam notice or verification option for fear of helping people better spam them. In other words, the less they say, the less potential spammers are uncertain of what may be caught. Of course, that also means plenty of people not doing spamming may assume they've done so if they get dropped for a variety of perfectly innocent reasons.

I guess that's the reason I like the voluntary and public approach. At least with that, Google and the other search engines can establish a direct relationship with SEM firms (and ad agencies or anyone else who does promotion on behalf of others). The search engines potentially are giving some "spam tips" away, but I think that would be offset by better understanding and relating to some of these companies.

[Incubator]

I can really only see the major search engines building relations with SEO/SEM firms depending on the the purchasing power the SEM firm brings with the client to the table. Organic natural index listings do not provide google or Yahoo any direct income. Those "free" listings everyone wants to appear on the top pages with, do not send Google and Yahoo any sort of income, but the buying potential Adwords, Site Match and so on...will naturally be given a second look if the budget is in an area where Google and Yahoo like to see. What we should ask the major engines, is what do they have in plan for companies or individuals that bring a revenue stream to THIER business by using the programs offered. Lets face it Google will not pat you on the head and say" you have been a good ethical markerter" so here is your reward, natural index is only governed by complaints and not neccesarily good work.

Another large draw back are those companies offering submissions to 300,000 search engines for 99.00, these companies infact our doing more harm to our business as well as anyone who signs up for it. Forums like this one hopefully will bring the industry to a point where de-education becomes a helpful path by letting ppl know the facts.

[Daria_Goetsch]

I don't think the in fighting between SEM's helps the industry as a whole. I'm not talking about obvious spammers who have a scam going to rip off a client, everyone needs to be aware of those companies. I'm talking about variations on methods SEM's use in the industry, and how we often have extreme conversations about what is an absolute in "right" and "wrong". I don't think this does a service to the SEM industry. If we're reading all about it online, it is there for potential clients to read as well.

Standards idea: all SEM companies are required to have an agreement between client and SEM stating the client was informed of all potential SEM techniques that might cause problems with the search engines, with those techniques listed in the agreement. Those companies not providing the agreement to the client could be cited and/or fined. In this situation, the client is fully informed of best practices, and the decision to proceed using questionable techniques is between the client and SEM.

[NFFC]

Oh boy, my favourite subject!

>Improving The Reputation Of The SEM Industry

I think firstly we have a lot of confusion about who the SEM/SEO industry consists of.

It seems whenever these discussions arise the focus seems to fall on a very small but very vocal group. For want of a better example many of the members of SEMPO fall in to this group, I don't believe they represent anything more than a tiny fraction of a % of "our" industry. Let me give an example using today's announcement concerning Marketleap:

"Digital Impact expects the acquisition to result in approximately $1.5 million in additional net revenues and approximately $300,000 in EBITDA(1) for fiscal 2005"

That is a tiny, tiny company by any measure and yet is touted as one of the market leaders. I know SEO's that work from their back bedroom that earn more and webmaster/SEO's that do more in a month AND there are 10's of thousands of them!

So we have a mismatch about where the real power and influence lies and where I believe it actually lies. Just because the SE's marketing departments find it easier to deal with these so called "large" companies doesn't make them important, some would say it just makes them easier to use.

So with the proviso that I think we are focusing on the wrong "group" in looking for a lead in these matters my suggestion is very straightforward:

We need to attack, expose and stamp out hypocrisy whenever we see it.

Let me give some specific examples from both sides of the coin.

As we have mentioned SEMPO already have a quick scan of the member list. Many good companies there, some great ones, personally I recognise a few labelled by the SE's as very bad boys, spammers par excellence breaking every rule in the book. Others, which I know from personal experience are page jackers, some would call them thiefs. My belief, as stated earlier in this thread is as far as the SE's are concerned the main difference between a dirty spammer and a vauled partner is how much they spend on PPC, I think that is a very poor state of affairs.

Lets have a look at the SE's, they too play their part in this dirty game. Taking Yahoo as an example [for no other reason than they are an easy target] look at how on the one hand they say you must show the same content to us as you show to the user, contrast that with the fact that they will allow you to cloak a feed as_long_as_you_pay_them. Take Yahoo again and the statement that site match does not affect ranking, they are weasel words. Lets look at the facts, sites that pass a human review get a boost, ALL site match URL's get a human review... ergo and so on and so forth.

If we are looking to improve the reputation of our industry I believe we have a very, very long way to go and are currently headed in the wrong direction. I believe the current "leadership" is doing a very poor job, I believe that by listening to them the SE's are doing a very poor job.

Short term I only see things getting worse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy

[Incubator]

"Digital Impact expects the acquisition to result in approximately $1.5 million in additional net revenues and approximately $300,000 in EBITDA(1) for fiscal 2005That is great for "DI" .....showing that SEM can lead in a traditional marketing venue....GGGEEEZZZ I should head to the great USA for our VC funding :)

Cheers

Wc

[Wail]

We need a watch dog and a watch dog with teeth. An independent organisation of sufficient size and prominence to investigate "dodgy SEO agency" reports, to have some support from search engines (who should want to be seen cooperating with a watch dog of suitable status) and with enough above the line presence for consumers to be aware of.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Interactive Advertising Burea (http://www.iab.net) than an SEO organisation created by SEO agencies, for SEO agencies and which sells off PageRank. The IAB is an example, please note.

A decent watch dog would allow some form of accreditation in addition to any warnings. Agencies would need to register valid contact details (and more, perhaps financial assurances too) to score the accreditation and so the watch dog would not have to hunt down shadowy figures in attic bedrooms as the customer complaints started to come in.

The watch dog would be in a position to keep track of the SEO agency's reputation.

I think this would make things tough for the smaller SEOs and it would increase the barrier to entry on the market place but this might not be a bad idea.

[NFFC]

>so the watch dog would not have to hunt down shadowy figures in attic bedrooms

I think you will find they consist of the best and most ethical SEO's you will be likely to meet.

Of course if they are you will never be able to find them anyhow.

[Bernard]

I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of great SEO/SEM firms. They do good work, and it's unfortunate that the entire industry gets tarred with the same brush.

You make one customer happy and he might tell another person about your service/product. You make one customer mad and he will tell ten people to avoid you like the plague. That's a paraphrase of an old saying.

Are all used car salesmen dishonest? No, but their industry has that reputation because of the perceived abundance of less than honest salesmen. IMO, SEM is facing a similar problem.

What's the solution? Clearly we need to have standards that SEM firms will follow, right? ...

Standards - would be a good start
Certification - would be better for consumers
Licensing - I doubt anyone wants to go this far

Having a Professional organization for SEM that means the same thing to SEM as (for example) PMI means to project management would be a good thing. Any organization that promotes a minimum standard that members are expected to uphold will help consumers.

SEO Consultants and SEOPros have made a good start with standards and certification, IMO. I would like to see search engines support a non-profit Professional organization like them.

... I do know that anyone trying to start out and define what's "ethical" begins from a point of weakness. That's because the search engines each define for themselves what they consider to be acceptable. So others trying to say what's right and wrong, on behalf of the entire SEM industry, don't stand on firm ground no matter how good the intentions or even whether they are generally correct. They still cannot speak for the search engines themselves.

I doubt any search engine will support an organization that does not prohibit violations of their guidelines (or allows violations within the standards being promoted). The arguments of whether or not it is ethical to do so are moot in the context of developing support for an industry Professional organization IMO. Without search engine backing, a Professional organization will lack the necessary credibility to drive the industry.

While interpretations of guidelines may drive debates over what is acceptable practice, ethics and standards within a Professional organization would necessarily require members to comply with the guidelines of any search engine that is being targeted IMO.

[Incubator]

Interesting idea....but how would you govern the 10,000's of affiliate marketers out there that use the shady side of SEO, lets face it they still deliver forms of doorways, hallways and enterance pages. Depending on the industry you are in those may account for the largest range of your competition for a client. Case in point, we do some work for online casinos...they have 25,000 affiliate re-sellers that will implement " any coding necessary" for conversions. When we have a team of 4 on the account competing with 25,000 affiliates, the company (client) always turns to us to say"how come our affiliates are ranking better then us....we dont want to keep paying 35% comission for life to the affiliates" ?

Controlling organizations is the easiest part of all,looking at the whole picture though, may lead to more drill down tactics needed buy all organizations to say "one off splash pages are no good", then again that train of though can lead to banner ads as well,they are intrusive also and dont care any weight anymore as well

Cheers

WC

[bwelford]

All these suggestions re some type of watch dog with teeth imply huge efforts on the parts of lots of people.

My simple suggestion in the second post to this thread would require very limited efforts but these efforts would be applied by those who are most directly affected. To my mind, the most important stakeholders here are the search engines who are being spammed and those website owners who are delisted by the actions of disreputable SEO's.

[For those who do not have time to go to read the link (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=77154#77154) I put in there, here is a short synopsis of the important points. I suggested that a search engine like Google should appoint a 'Best Practices Judge' who would review and perhaps de-index those URL's that were not following Best Practices. The owner of a URL that had been de-indexed would receive notice of this de-indexing but without reasons. This is a great way of rapidly empowering such URL owners who may have been "assisted" by a disreputable SEO. A 'Best Practices Ombudsman' process would allow those who had unfairly been indexed to appeal the de-indexing.]

Whatever process is adopted should be simple and have a high probability of working effectively. I fear that the debates that have swirled around SEMPO show the difficulties of trying to set limits on behaviour rather than suggesting a good direction to follow.

[I, Brian]

Nice topic here - SEO ethics is one of more own personal favourite discussion points.

The trouble is, the whole industry is so diverse, from the clients to the SEO individuals & companies to the search engines themselves. There is no level playing field from which to make straight and clear rules that can equally apply to any field.

How ordinary local businesses are served best is going to be very different to how adult businesses need to be promoted - and the different search engines and directories being targeted is also a pertinent issue: though Google has been king of the hill for a while, there are always the Yahoo! Slurp and MSN bots snapping at the heels, to mention Teoma and other established alternatives.

Ultimately, SEO is a business that anyone can set themselves up with minimal initial layout costs. However, this effects many other fields of internet business, not least web design and webhosting. Any kid with HTTP access can theoretically lay claim to mastery of any such field - ultimately, it is up to the peers to be able to help distinguish who are the people worth taking serious - for example, as like WebHostingTalk has done for the web hosting industry.

However, the diversity of SEO client is reflected in the diversity of the SEO industry - some just want link exchanges, some want links, others are more concerned with content - and, ultimately, they are all chasing search terms of different degrees of competitiveness.

A "whitelist" I think is a bad idea, because it cannot reflect the needs of clients, merely the preferred standards of search engines. And as you've rightly pointed out, they're not keen on working with us.

More specifically, most search engines probably wish the whole issue of SEO would crawl under a large rock and be crushed there - they want results on their own terms, not on the terms of the consumer, or the consumer’s representatives.

Ultimately, search engines are oligarchies who insist on being obeyed, but refuse to provide clear rules for SEO because that would mean condoning the practice of usurping their authority over their own SERPs.

Of course, in looking to circumvent the authority of search engines, SEO's become like the rogue - a rogue who must look to choose (not exclusively) to serve themselves, their clients, and the search engines. Which presents it's own problems. Ideally, each master will be served well, but there is always a balance required.

Any attempt to whitelist the industry ignores its complexities - and previous attempts, in my opinion, have simply served as mockeries. SEO consultant is a good example - it's effectively a list of copywriters claiming the SEO crown.

Which in itself denigrates the entire industry to text-pushers, when high-volume high-quality content works so well for non-commercial sites - and artificial link-building has proven time and time again to be the definitive power of commercial SEO.

Danny, if you would like a definitive answer on how to give respect to the SEO industry, then I would personally suggest a place like searchenginewatch models it's forum as like WebHostingTalk, and what that has done for the webhosting industry.

Nowadays, across the webmastering community, when someone asks for a recommendation for webhosting, somebody at some point is going to recommend a search on webhostingtalk.

Although the general confidentiality required in SEO means that few clients are going to be able to be too open about who's doing what for them, a place like SEW could fulfill some form of that non-partisan authoritative role for commentating on SEO as an industry, as well as individual firms and personnel.

However, it's never going to be that unless you allow members to be able to identify themselves more openly, in my opinion. For example, single line one-link signature links are a good idea.

Heck, if you want to be a PR hog then use a jump script and then people aren't going to be posting about for apparent backlinks. But allow the members of the SEO community to identify itself.

The current system of "profiles only" continues the tradition of trying to keep the SEO industry low-key, and the lack of identifier is a good reason why a lot of SEO's will not take a place like the SEW forums as a serious place to post. That's precisely why WebMasterWorld is so crowded with chatty amateurs - having professional visibility means something to most professional people. And profiles simply do not fulfil that role for many.

If you want to bring reputation to the SEO industry as a whole then you could use the SEW forums as a non-partisan place to bring the peers of the industry together - all of us looking at one another, meeting on neutral and authoritative ground.

That way, although you couldn't dictate terms of "ethics" to the industry, you could serve as a place for people to look for information on SEO - whether practice, business, or reputation of specific companies. You become an authority on the SEO industry because the SEO industry would be more thoroughly represented here than anywhere else on the net - and that authority is something that people would look for. It’s a key principle of “natural” link-building, and ultimately a possible way forward to giving the people of the industry a single central face.

In my opinion that's one of the most accessible ways to let the SEO industry improve it's reputation – but, ultimately, it’s your call on whether you dare aspire to that.

2 very long cents. :)

[NFFC]

>While interpretations of guidelines may drive debates over what is acceptable practice, ethics and standards within a Professional organization would necessarily require members to comply with the guidelines of any search engine that is being targeted IMO.

Oh boy Bernard I had you down as an intelligent guy, going to have to give a negitive reputation vote on that one.

So are you saying that the main driver of ethics on the www should be the search engines? Looking at past, recent and very near future business practices I believe they should be the last group to be in charge of any ethical debate.

[Wail]

>so the watch dog would not have to hunt down shadowy figures in attic bedrooms

I think you will find they consist of the best and most ethical SEO's you will be likely to meet.

Of course if they are you will never be able to find them anyhow.

I'm not saying that attic SEOers are shadowy. I'm saying that shadowy figures can be even tricker to track down if they're not tied to a commerical bricks and mortar investment. It's all about having a list - and ways to contact SEOs - who wish to be able to say that they're "Registered with [Watch Dog X]".

"Registered with" - by the way, not necessarily "Approved by". It's a first step to reassurance but an important one.

[Incubator]

I dont think you can apply any " ethics" to the current situation until the playing grounds are all fair to begin with...this I do not see happening in the near future



Cheers

WC

[dannysullivan]

I doubt any search engine will support an organization that does not prohibit violations of their guidelines (or allows violations within the standards being promoted).

SEMPO, IAB, The International Association Of Work From Home SEO Companies -- I'm not looking to any of the existing groups or some new organization to come along and "certify" SEM firms. Others might think that will work. I do not. That's because as I said before, the spam rules any organization would claim to enforce wouldn't have been set by that organization. They're set by each individual search engine.

I had a email correspondence with one such group recently, that wanted to define the use of a Dublin Core title tag in addition to an HTML title tag as spam. Not in my opinion. DC tags aren't indexed by major search engines that I know of, have a completely different use and a purpose to coexist with regular title tags. Yet according to this group, that's spam?

Each search engine defines spam. Some things they say publicly not to do, they may still sometimes allow, depending on the exact intent. Some things they don't itemize, they may consider spam. So if you come back to this:

Standards idea: all SEM companies are required to have an agreement between client and SEM stating the client was informed of all potential SEM techniques that might cause problems with the search engines, with those techniques listed in the agreement.

Well, I couldn't even list each and every technique. The situation is also going to just get worse. We've lived in a nearly pure Google world for some time. End of the year, we'll be dealing with four major crawlers: Google, Yahoo, MSN and Ask Jeeves. The days of multiple and conflicting rules may return.

That's why I return to the idea of skipping past the standards idea, which has never gone anywhere, and suggest the voluntary reporting program. If a search engine spots something seriously wrong with a firm, they can let the public know with the cooperation of that firm, after a review.

Interesting idea....but how would you govern the 10,000's of affiliate marketers out there that use the shady side of SEO

I'm not proposing that anyone who does SEO be governed. I'm not even suggesting we set up a watchdog group, though others may want that.

Like NFFC says, I agree there's no organization that can claim to speak for the entire industry. It's massive, ranging from individual practitioners to large companies. It involves companies that do nothing but improve free listings via pure SEO to ad agencies who have a unit dealing with nothing but paid listings.

What I am saying is that there are consumers who want the help of SEM firms. Right now, they have no authorative way to check out whether a firm has had problems with a particular search engine. So perhaps the search engines themselves should allow for reporting of SEM firms who agree to be monitored.

This doesn't prevent other firms who don't want to take part from still doing SEM. This doesn't accredit SEM firms, which is an impossible task -- are search engines going to approve each and every person who may decide to do SEM work for someone else? But it will give the SEM firms that want it an opportunity.

As a side benefit, I think it would help improve the industry's reputation. Instead of various pundits saying SEO is useless or full of scam artists, the fact you could check up on some firms and find out they'd had no reports would be helpful, IMHO.

[dannysullivan]

However, it's never going to be that unless you allow members to be able to identify themselves more openly, in my opinion. For example, single line one-link signature links are a good idea.
We're not changing the signature policy for the immediate future. If you want to add your dissent about that, the Signature Policy (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135) thread is the right place. It also provides a lot of explanation about why we think you can be plenty visible without a signature showing up at the bottom of everything you post. As a reminder, if you want more visibility, you can put whatever you want to have underneath your name in the profile. You're choosing to be shown as "UK SEO." It's perfectly fine to make that your URL or company name, if you want.

If you want to bring reputation to the SEO industry as a whole then you could use the SEW forums as a non-partisan place to bring the peers of the industry together - all of us looking at one another, meeting on neutral and authoritative ground.
Well, that's what I hope people perceive it to be. And one of the reasons we have this particular forum is to let people freely talk about their experiences with particular firms, as relevant.

[Wail]

SEMPO, IAB, The International Association Of Work From Home SEO Companies -- I'm not looking to any of the existing groups or some new organization to come along and "certify" SEM firms. Others might think that will work. I do not. That's because as I said before, the spam rules any organization would claim to enforce wouldn't have been set by that organization. They're set by each individual search engine.

The watch dog doesn't define what spam is. Search engines do. The watch dog simply compiles and collects complaints made against SEOs. Clients can make complaints and I suppose the search engines themselves could too.

A consumer looking for an SEO agency can check with the watch dog. "Does [agency Y] have a legacy of customer complaints?" and the watch dog will be able to answer.

It's not certification. It's registration at an organisation significant enough for businesses to approach and trust.

[NFFC]

I'm struggling with the motivation of the thread.

>What I am saying is that there are consumers who want the help of SEM firms

Sure.

>But it will give the SEM firms that want it an opportunity.

From my very limited experience the firms that "want it" may be the very ones that are a poor choice to the consumer.

Thats a very big circle to square.

[Jill Whalen]

Just to clarify, my "search engines aren't the boss of me" comment meant that I don't need search engine guidelines to know the different between right or wrong, and to know whether I'm spamming them or not.

It's easy to know if you're spamming an engine without reading their guidelines.

But aside from that, Danny, wouldn't the search engines be opening themselves up to law suits if they started putting out names of companies they've banned, to the public?

I would imagine this is why they will never do that. I seem to remember other organizations such as MarketingSherpa and SEOPros being sued for putting out names of alleged "spammers."

Now, perhaps the search engines would win the law suits (I think they would) but why would they open themselves up to that if they don't have to?

Nope, we need an organization that will set standards and those that want to agree with them can, and those that don't, won't. But at least they will be out there and people can decide if those standards make sense for them and for the company that they eventually choose to work with.

If SEMPO won't step up to the plate (they won't) then it's time of others to do so. Because I agree with you, Danny, it's just not right that we have to be looked upon with distain because we're part of the same industry as scammers, spammers and thieves.

[Bernard]

>While interpretations of guidelines may drive debates over what is acceptable practice, ethics and standards within a Professional organization would necessarily require members to comply with the guidelines of any search engine that is being targeted IMO.

...

So are you saying that the main driver of ethics on the www should be the search engines? ...

I think you need to re-read the entire post. You are not taking that statement in context. What I said is that, IMO, a Professional organization that promotes minimum standards and certifications with search engine backing will need to require adherence to guidelines (to gain the backing in the first place).

Of course, I could be wrong. Google may decide to publicly promote an organization that promotes members who violate their guidelines as professionals in the field. If it happens, I'll accept your comments on my relative intelligence as warranted.

[NFFC]

>with search engine backing

That is where we diverge, I believe that the SE's are not fit and proper people to define how we as SEO's impact the user experience.

If there are rules to be set there is only one party with the authority to set them, that is webmasters.

Imagine this, we decide what is spam, we decide what is acceptable, we decide what is "ethical" and act appropiately.

>I'll accept your comments on my relative intelligence as warranted.

I was only joshing you, but yes that neg feedback is me.

[Jill Whalen]

Imagine this, we decide what is spam, we decide what is acceptable, we decide what is "ethical" and act appropiately.

That's what we already do (most of us who care), but obviously it's not working.

People are getting scammed every day, and eventually their sites are getting banned.

[David Wallace]

Nope, we need an organization that will set standards and those that want to agree with them can, and those that don't, won't. But at least they will be out there and people can decide if those standards make sense for them and for the company that they eventually choose to work with.

If SEMPO won't step up to the plate (they won't) then it's time of others to do so. Because I agree with you, Danny, it's just not right that we have to be looked upon with distain because we're part of the same industry as scammers, spammers and thieves.
I agree and the job of that organization should be to educate to public about what spam is and why it is the wrong road to venture down.

I just don't see the need to "spread the good news about search engine marketing (SEM)" as SEMPO is trying to do. People are going to learn about the value of SEM with or without SEMPO. If anything, people like Danny Sullivan have already contributed more to the promotion of search engine marketing as a valuable marketing avenue to the world than anyone else.

What the industry needs is an organization to step up and warn consumers about un-ethical SEO/SEM practices, much in the same way the BBB does. With education, buyers of SEO and SEM will have more knowledge of what to avoid. Right now, I don't think they really understand what spam is and what it isn't, so they don't know what to watch out for. As the general public becomes more educated about what spam is and how it can negatively impact their businesses, I believe spammers in large will fall by the wayside.

[dannysullivan]

I'm struggling with the motivation of the thread.
Pretty simple. I'm tired of our industry being seen as full of scam artists and dissed as "black arts" or something that should simply be avoided.

I think it's unfortunate that it's made out like there are only a "few" good apples in SEM for a crate full of rotting ones. I'm tired of headlines like:

Schmoozing with the Enemy
How does Google deal with folks who try to trick its search engine? By throwing them a party, of course.
That was Fast Company about (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/3115471#enemy) those who attended the Google Dance last year during SES.

[NFFC]

>That's what we already do (most of us who care),

I ain't part of your "we" and trust me I really care.

>People are getting scammed every day, and eventually their sites are getting banned.

Then those businesses need to make better decisions. So called SEO's running around shouting "spammers, spammers" is hardly likely to enable that process, all it seems to do is re-enforce that particular style of "SEO's" business model. It saddens me that some people can be so caught up in their own view and bottom line that they are unable to see the bigger picture.

Once again, we need to attack, expose and stamp out hypocrisy whenever we see it.

[David Wallace]

Right, how about a whitelist? Perhaps SEO/SEM firms voluntarily agree to participate with each major search engine in a public reporting service. You'd tell your clients that they can easily check if you've done anything a search engine considers wrong by using a database the search engine provides. If you don't participate, nothing would be published.
In some ways, this is like the Better Business Bureau but whether a member or not, they will publish whether a company has a satisfactory record or not and if you being a consumer want to get the dirt on why a company has an unsatisfactory record, you can buy a report with all the details.

I don't think it should reside at the search engines however as I don't really think they care. I think they care about search relevancy but I don't think they care if some one gets scammed or not. It is not their job to care. It is the job of BBB.

So to take your 'whitelist' idea and incorporate it into one organization would be a better option. SEOs and SEMs can join, which of course will give them more credibility. For those who join, they must resolve any disputes with customers that involve spammy techniques in the same manner that members of the BBB must do the same. At the same time, the organization continuously educates the general public about spam, scams and the like.

[I, Brian]

Heh, the sig links issue isn't something I'm signing up to - merely a suggestion, and I'll leave it at that, before I leave again. :)

As for ethics overall - if the client is being intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented - such as practicing "black hat" without warning the client of the consequence - then that s unethical. It's unethical because it is effectively defrauding the client, as per Traffic Power seem to be alleged to have been doing.

The whole "whitehat" vs "blackhat" argument is a strawman, though - it artifically divides the industry, and fails to appreciate that a range of client requirements in this dynamic industry.

But let's not try and claim that people who claim they are "whitehat" are therefore "ethical" - many who have built themsevles up on "ethical" pillars are clearly involved in practices that others may quite justifiably claim are "unethical".

Ultimately, so long as the client is informed, then SEO ethics boils down to relative morality: what "I" am doing is ethical, what "others" do is unethical.

And that is truly the final argument.

[David Wallace]

Ultimately, so long as the client is informed, then SEO ethics boils down to relative morality: what "I" am doing is ethical, what "others" do is unethical. And that is truly the final argument.
Yeah but the problem is that many times the client 'is not informed' or if they are informed of what the spammer is doing (doorway pages, JS redirects, etc.) they are not made aware of the dangers (getting site penalized, banned, etc.).

True there were probably a few people that hired a company like Traffic Power because they knew they would spam their way to the top but I would venture to say that the vast majority of people simply fell prey to their slick sales pitch.

[dannysullivan]

Just to clarify
Thanks for that, Jill -- I did take it the other way.

Wouldn't the search engines be opening themselves up to law suits if they started putting out names of companies they've banned, to the public?
I would assume not if the companies agreed to the reporting. That's the point to it being voluntary. Not everyone will want to take part, nor have to. And it may be that if you do get a bad report, you could still choose to opt-out.

I seem to remember other organizations such as MarketingSherpa and SEOPros being sued for putting out names of alleged "spammers."
Yes, it involved MarketingSherpa, SEO Guide Expands, But Ratings Upset Some Firms (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2164711) explains more0 And I'd agree such things scare the search engines. And since they are scared, why SEMPO or some other group is going to enforce search engine standards on their behalf is unworkable to me.

I believe that the SE's are not fit and proper people to define how we as SEO's impact the user experience....If there are rules to be set there is only one party with the authority to set them, that is webmasters.
Maybe they aren't fit, but that's almost not the point. They do set the rules. They do enforce. And right now, you and others have no public recourse for appeal.

To return back to my original idea, it could very well be that should a search engine post a negative report about a company (that voluntarily participates), a webmaster group might be a source for appeal and review. And also again, there are things search engines do that a webmaster group might want to have reviewed.

People are going to learn about the value of SEM with or without SEMPO.
Yes, they learned this week from Seth that practically no one in the industry is worthwhile.

Then those businesses need to make better decisions.
Yes they do. They need to be checking references, and they don't, for one. But if they want to find out if a firm has trouble with a search engine, they also need a better way to do that.

What's the advice now? Hmmm -- type in the name of the firm into Google. Did you find them? No? Oh, they're probably bad. Wait, check the Google Toobar's PageRank meter. You know what that is, right? OK, is it zero or gray bar? Yeah, probably banned.

My suggestion is one attempt to avoid this reading the tea leaves scenario. And I welcome it being knocked about -- perhaps it is entirely not workable. But what I would ask is can anyone think of anything new or different or unique. What we don't need is more:


We should have standards, enforced by some third party body.
We should have a whitelist the search engine publish of accredited firms.
We should have a blacklist the search engines publish of bad/evil firms.

OK, if you love those ideas -- go on, keep pushing for them. But they've all been discussed over the years and gone nowhere. That's why I'm looking for something new, and ideally something that would gain some agreement by a variety of people across the spectrum. It also needed be comprehensive. It doesn't have to solve every single problem SEM is perceived to have.

[rustybrick]

At the time I write this post, 7 out of the 11 members live in this forum are reading this thread. This is probably one of the most interesting threads I have read in a long time. Ok...

SEMPO is just about awareness and getting more money in the SEM firm's pockets.

There are directories of SEM firms, such as SEO Consultants and the others mentioned here.

BUT, is there a policing body to review those firms that do not volunteer to be listed in a directory? Not that I have seen.

[Bernard]

That is where we diverge, I believe that the SE's are not fit and proper people to define how we as SEO's impact the user experience.

By "the user experience" are you referring to SE search results or the experience of browsing/using a 3rd party site? I do not recall anyone claiming that SE's were fit and proper to "define how ... SEO's impact the user experience" in the latter meaning. The user experience on a 3rd party web site is entirely beside the point. The subject is marketing through the search engines. They are clearly fit to decide what content they choose to show their visitors.

[dannysullivan]

Is there a policing body to review those firms that do not volunteer to be listed in a directory? Not that I have seen.

Sure, Black Hat SEO Directory (http://www.blackhatseo.com/)! But it's not going out of its way to find firms.

I think there's always going to be firms that don't want to be reviewed. Some will do things that they know won't pass muster. Some will simply disagree with whatever standards are setup, and not always simply because they want to spam. Some may simply think it's not worth the bother. If you're a consulting doing well with word-of-mouth traffic and referrals, with a good reputation, it just may make no sense.

I guess that's why I come back to the voluntary idea. It sidesteps the difficult issue of trying to be all inclusive.

[NFFC]

>Maybe they aren't fit, but that's almost not the point. They do set the rules. They do enforce.

Infoseek, Northern Light, Excite, Web Crawler, Altavista, Alltheweb, Inktomi etc etc, those boys set the rules.

Honestly, don't you think its time for another group to set the rules?

>The subject is marketing through the search engines.

I was under the impression that the subject is "Improving The Reputation Of The SEM Industry".

[I, Brian]

Yeah but the problem is that many times the client 'is not informed' or if they are informed of what the spammer is doing (doorway pages, JS redirects, etc.) they are not made aware of the dangers (getting site penalized, banned, etc.).


I think you used the word "spammer" when really you meant "scammer". :)

The one single point about SEO ethics that most people could agree upon, is that if you risk your client's site being penalised, without informing them of the possible consequences, then this is "unethical" - not because of search engines rules, but simply because it is a form of misrepresentation: bad business practice, and even possible fraud.

[Nick W]

They are clearly fit to decide what content they choose to show their visitors.

...absolutely. Let 'em do just that with their algo's. They're a somewhat naive choice for involvement in any more than they already do.

It'll end in tears...

Nick

[Daria_Goetsch]

The whole "whitehat" vs "blackhat" argument is a strawman, though - it artifically divides the industry, and fails to appreciate that a range of client requirements in this dynamic industry.

The one single point about SEO ethics that most people could agree upon, is that if you risk your client's site being penalised, without informing them of the possible consequences, then this is "unethical" - not because of search engines rules, but simply because it is a form of misrepresentation: bad business practice, and even possible fraud.

I agree with you I, Brian, well said.

[massa]

What if this all-powerful, all-knowing SEO watchdog organization really worked and for all intents and purposes, the day of search engine spam was gone? All we would be left with would be poor search engines.

The part of this question we seem to be missing, (except NFFC), is that you can't expect to hold one group accountable without holding the other just as accountable. Search engines play a part in this equation. They are not God. They are not some kind of law-giving body. They are just a search engine and should be held responsible for their own content the same as any other webmaster should be held responsible for theirs.

What if this watchdog group was successful in putting out of business every webmaster who did not agree with the watchdog's definition of spam? Does anyone really think that Google would then tell potential investors that a threat to their investment was the fact that their technology had a long way to go instead of trying to lay the blame of a stock price gone bad on those nasty spammers.

The search engines have a vested interest in perptuating the image of this techno-elite sub-culture having the ability to destroy all the good work of the search engine. Without the percpetion of spam, it is just a search engine who never should have indexed what they don't want.

What if we all agree that no one would use cloaking, build networked domains on different IP's, generate multiple pages using the same terms or break any guideline of any search engine and we all redeemed ourselves in the eyes of Google. What if no one did anything with search engines in mind and all content was provided only with the surfer in mind? Is that the end of the debate or the industry black eye?

Or is it possible that the engine would simply make new guidelines leaving any problem with their results the fault of the "new" army of spammers re-born of the new guidelines being broken?

[David Wallace]

What if this all-powerful, all-knowing SEO watchdog organization really worked and for all intents and purposes, the day of search engine spam was gone? All we would be left with would be poor search engines.
As long as there is a human race, that would never happen. There will always be those who will try to cheat the system.

What a watchdog group (don't really like that term) could do if it was something like the BBB is to educate and protect consumers. The BBB doesn't stop companies from scamming consumers. We still see that happening everyday to consumers that don't conduct the proper research before buying or hiring.

But for someone who does want to conduct some research on a company they are hiring, the BBB is a place they can go to do that. Or if they do hire a BBB member and then have a problem with them later, the BBB can mediate between the two. This process still does not stop all the scams that go on out there, just tries to provide a way to avert getting scammed and a non-biased way for a company to represent themselves as one who will not conduct unethical business practices.

[seobook]

my personal problem is that with a heavily influential watchdog type group I would have never got to the point where I have the freedom to type this sentence right now. I would have most likely failed.

There are also certain things you can not possibly grade an SEO on.

creating a better idea that naturally wants to spread has some intrinsic value, but how do you judge my ability to do that?

knowing more people or having powerful social connections makes the job of an SEO way easier, buy how do rate that skill set?

knowing a good bit about psychology or being outgoing makes it far easier to acquire links, but how do you rate that skill set in my seo rating?

being able to decode patterns makes it far easier to be a good seo, but again that is not something many people would probably rate on an SEO rating system.

there are so many things that you can not rate. In my opinion many of the things that you can not rate have a far greater implication into how successful you will be than the things you can rate do.

when links have some intrinsic value we are all essentially multi level marketers selling ourselves or our clients websites.

[Bernard]

... But what I would ask is can anyone think of anything new or different or unique. What we don't need is more:

We should have standards, enforced by some third party body.
We should have a whitelist the search engine publish of accredited firms.
We should have a blacklist the search engines publish of bad/evil firms.

OK, if you love those ideas -- go on, keep pushing for them. But they've all been discussed over the years and gone nowhere. That's why I'm looking for something new, and ideally something that would gain some agreement by a variety of people across the spectrum. ...

IMO, the only way to improve an industry's reputation is to clean it (the industry) up. If SEM wants to adopt a professional image, SEM companies will need to take the yoke of responsibility upon themselves. Joe Public does not expect to have to learn all about the law, medicine and engineering to choose a professional when they feel sick, have a toothache or need something designed/built. Putting the onus on Joe Public to learn about SEO/SEM in order to evaluate a potential company's offerings removes SEM from the realm of a profession as Joe Public is required to know almost as much as the firms it encompasses. Welcome to the world of used car sales. If you want to leave it to caveat emptor and absolve yourselves of all responsibility, you will always be stuck swimming among the sharks and there will be little you can do to improve the industry's reputation IMO.

[Jill Whalen]

IMO, I don't see a watchdog group working.

I also don't see a blacklist from the search engines working if you have to sign up to possibly be on that blacklist. The spammers obviously aren't going to sign up.

I also don't think that simply telling your client the risks involved with your spamming on their behalf solves any problems in our industry. In fact, it just makes them worse. It's exactly what Seth Godin was talking about.

Yeah, we'll cheat for you sir, but we have to tell you first that you might get caught.

Absolutely not. Cheating and taking risks with client's sites should not be an accepted practice in our industry. Until or unless some SEMs take a stand and just say no to cheating, we will always have the Seth Godins of the world rightfully calling us scumbags.

Why is it that most other industries are able to have a code of ethics or standards of best practice and SEM isn't? They all have to deal with the same kinds of problems and they were able to overcome them to come up with a code.

It's true that there will be a good portion of people that will refuse to work within the paremeters of any standards or code of ethics. There's nothing we can do about that, but it doesn't mean that one shouldn't be created for those who don't believe that cheating should be an intregal part of our industry.

Cheating isn't an intregal part of other industries, why is it accepted in ours?

[donut]

Because one person's "cheating" is another person's "positioning" in the "best interests of the client".

It all boils down to the fact that there isn't a clear definition of what "cheating" is. Some things are obvious- anything hidden from users but visible to spiders.

But what about linking? If I create 12 mini-sites instead of 1 big site, is that "cheating"? If I buy links from a major traffic source just for the link pop, it that "cheating"?

[David Wallace]

It all boils down to the fact that there isn't a clear definition of what "cheating" is. Some things are obvious- anything hidden from users but visible to spiders.
I think it is those "obvious things" that we are referring to. Most of what people consider to be spam is deceptive. This article (http://www.searchrank.com/resources/art003.htm) written awhile ago explains some of the deceptive spamming techniques. There is no other way to describe those techniques listed in article than deceptive. Even candy-coated wrapped in a ribbon, they are deceptive.

But what about linking? If I create 12 mini-sites instead of 1 big site, is that "cheating"? If I buy links from a major traffic source just for the link pop, it that "cheating"?
'Maybe' on the first and if not, it may be at least "Internet littering" and 'no' on the second. ;)

[donut]

'Maybe' on the first and if not, it may be at least "Internet littering" and 'no' on the second. ;)

Hmnn... says you. ;) I doubt the entire SEM community would be in agreement with your assessment.

That's the problem- who decides? Who's going to draw that line in the sand and say this stuff is cheating and this stuff is best practice?

And what do you do if the cheating site beats the best practice site? Before that stirs up too much controversy, I firmly believe that in most any instance, best practices done well can beat out the tricks of the trade. Unfortunately, best practices require more time, effort, and creativity than cheating and there are more people doing "best practices" wrong then there are doing it "right", IMO.

It seems many people want to follow a formula or set of rules instead of assessing each site and its unique needs. So, a site can follow best practices and be a victim of stuffed copywriting and formulaic keyword-here, keyword-here, keyword-here "optimization". That may work in low competition situations, but won't win the marathon over time.

[seobook]

Cheating isn't an intregal part of other industries, why is it accepted in ours?

in other industries "cheating" is illegal. is SEO it may be against the guidelines, but I bet if I focused all my energies on cheating with a collection of pharmacy websites there is a pretty good chance I would make a large sum of money.

if you are really into money that first 4 or 5 figure affiliate paycheck is enough to keep you huntin for more.

on the same token many of the clients who get "taken" have unoriginal ideas in oversaturated markets which prevent them from ranking well using standard by the book type seo techniques.

[Jill Whalen]

What about cheating in school? Cheating on your SATs? Cheating on an exam? Cheating on your taxes (okay that one is illegal).

Don't you believe that cheating is a bad thing whether it's illegal or not?

So the lure of money is a good excuse to cheat? It's no wonder our industry has a bad rep.

[Jill Whalen]

That's the problem- who decides? Who's going to draw that line in the sand and say this stuff is cheating and this stuff is best practice?

And that's exactly why we need an organization to spell it out. You don't have to agree with it and you don't have to even work within it's parameters, but at least there will be something out there.

I've resisted this whole thing forever too, just like Danny has, but enough is enough.

[seobook]

What about cheating in school? Cheating on your SATs? Cheating on an exam? Cheating on your taxes (okay that one is illegal).

Don't you believe that cheating is a bad thing whether it's illegal or not?

So the lure of money is a good excuse to cheat? It's no wonder our industry has a bad rep.

I am not saying that the lure of money is a good excuse to cheat, just that many people are driven by greed and often society view success in terms of dollars.

do I think cheating is wrong? it depends on who defines what cheating is and how and why they define it.

I generally do good work for people I work for, but I try hard not let other people's ethical guidelines guide my actions since I often am confused enough just trying to figure out my own guidelines to live by.

[Jill Whalen]

I am not saying that the lure of money is a good excuse to cheat, just that many people are driven by greed and often society view success in terms of dollars.


That's right. And they should choose a new industry.

[donut]

And that's exactly why we need an organization to spell it out. You don't have to agree with it and you don't have to even work within it's parameters, but at least there will be something out there.


Agree 100%. At least there would be a framework to start from, even if everyone didn't agree with it.

I am not saying that the lure of money is a good excuse to cheat, just that many people are driven by greed and often society view success in terms of dollars.

I don't think "society" as a whole agrees that greed and dollars equal success. I don't see anyone cheering Kenneth Lay of Enron in his fight to clear the charges against him, do you?

[Chris_D]

And that's exactly why we need an organization to spell it out

As many of us have said on numerous occassions - the 'rules' are made by the search engines - the rules are already there. We don't need them spelt out!!

The problem is that the search engine's don't actually police their own rules.

<step onto soapbox>

And - if the search engines do 'enforce' the rules - the delay between 'break' and 'enforce' is so long - people actually forget they broke the rules one Thursday last October..... so they scream and yell.

The crimes are defined - the actual punishment and the timeliness of the punishment are the problems. So much so - that most now believe there is no punishment.....

Google's PHDs should read a good book on training puppies. A lot of the same lessons apply. The puppy training books all say never come home and smack a puppy for something it did hours before - or it will just resent you.

Well - look at the resentment the belated 'enforcement' Florida et al have caused Google.

The sooner that Google & Yahoo! etc. actually contract some SEOs to show their PHDs how the rules are being broken - and the sooner the SEs use this knowledge to ENFORCE their published rules - the sooner the serps will be cleaned up - and the sooner the industry will become legitimised.

We don't need 'more' rules; we don't need 'new' rule makers. We just need timely enforcement of the 'existing' rules.

</steps off soapbox>
:)

[seobook]

I don't think "society" as a whole agrees that greed and dollars equal success. I don't see anyone cheering Kenneth Lay of Enron in his fight to clear the charges against him, do you?

that is because he is accused of helping to ruin the retirement and lives of thousands and thousands of people in an extremely visible way. often the mear speculation of wrongdoing makes people guilty in many eyes.

whenever people ask me what I do and I explain it they say "ok"

then they ask me how much I make and they often say "wow"

money really means nothing to me, but it means alot to many many people.

[JohnScott]

Pretty simple. I'm tired of our industry being seen as full of scam artists and dissed as "black arts" or something that should simply be avoided.


I really don't see why you'd want that perception to change when in fact it is a rather accurate perception. The first SEO I hired took $3,000 to start, changed a few page titles and stop returning my phone calls after a month.

That's not a rare occurence, either. Most "SEO Professionals" simply target cheap, two-cent keywords that nobody ever searches for, and then when they get top rankings for "low cost moving company in Phoenix Arizona USA" they expect a bonus.

SEO is filthy (http://www.internet-marketing-blog.com/filthy.php) most of the time. Top ranking on extremely productive search terms aren't going to be had without link building, and link building costs and takes time. Most SEOs are too busy pocketing the money to care about the fact that they just ripped off some hard working business person.

If SEOs are thought of as scam artists, it's a reputation well-deserved.

[searchengineblog.com]

What value does an SEO bring to:

a) a search engine
b) a search engine user
c) the webmaster who is hiring the SEO
d) other

[seobook]

What value does an SEO bring to:

a) a search engine
b) a search engine user
c) the webmaster who is hiring the SEO
d) other

ideally the SEO brings lots of the correct B from A (and other sources) to C. if D competes with C then hopefully the SEO help take traffic away from D.

since different people have different definitions of what an seo is and how they work it is hard to decide on the actual product delivered to A B or D though.

[I, Brian]

What about cheating in school? Cheating on your SATs? Cheating on an exam? Cheating on your taxes (okay that one is illegal).

Don't you believe that cheating is a bad thing whether it's illegal or not?

So the lure of money is a good excuse to cheat? It's no wonder our industry has a bad rep.
Jill, you're choosing an emotive word to hide the argument. You are trying to force your own (somewhat contentious) ideals of right and wrong on a relative argument.

Ultimately, SEO ethics boils down to a single statement:

What "I" am doing is ethical; what my competitor is doing is "unethical".

There is a terrible stink of hypocrisy about the entire "ethics" debate.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> There is a terrible stink of hypocrisy about the entire "ethics" debate.

That is probably the single statement in this thread that I agree the most with. Another good quote - in same line - is one that David Turner gave at SES in London a couple of years ago in a session about cloaking, doorway pages and SEO-ethics: Ethics is just cloaked hypocrisy! :)

This whole discussion reminds me of the the extreme religious people that want to take over our schools. They too think they have the moral right to tell the rest of us what is "ethical" in the schools. I like the response I once saw: "Please don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church!" I would say the sime to the moralists of this business.

Trying to define some kind of higher moral we should all follow is not going to unite this business or generally do any good, in my oppinion. Have religion united the world? No, it has created wars - and still does. Will the extreme moralists of this business be able to create a ethical platform the majority of our business will sign up to? I am pretty sure they will not.

The moralists are free to make a club with likeminded friends. But to think this will have any major impact on anything is in my mind very unrealistic. But please go ahead, I think such a club will in fact only create more work to people and companies like me. The more narrowminded the moralists get the more room it leaves for me (and others) to be creative.

[Wail]

Mikkel's post has inspired me to try and make my point again.

We shouldn't try and organise ethics. We can debate ethics until we're blue in the face.

We should try and bring some professional accountability to the industry. We won't be treated like professionals until we act like professionals.

I like the watchdog idea because the watchdog can collect complaints (made by customers; for whatever reason, spam, billing, holding on to domains, blackmail, etc) and can inform members of the public who go there to research. SEO's don't have to register with the watchdog (they're a start-up, say) but then they can't reassure would-be-clients by saying that they're a registered member.

I don't think the search engines need to be involved in this watch dog. Companies which make TV sets aren't involved in the TV Advert complaints procedures either.

Here's a question; if you don't do anything naughty, if you treat your clients well, why wouldn't you register with a neutral third party and record that fact?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> Here's a question; if you don't do anything naughty, if you treat your clients well, why wouldn't you register with a neutral third party and record that fact?

For one simple reasen: The way you define "naughty" may not be even close to what I think it is. Or the engines, for that matter. Show me a set of rules to follow that the majority of engines, SEO's, SEMs and SEO/SEM companies will sign up to and I may start to believe in the project. I just do not see that happen.

Maybe it's easier to illustrate it this way: Why would you not join my church/religion - we are all so ethical here? :)

What happens if a member of this group follow all the rules and still get a client's site removed from the indexes? (we all know this happens sometimes) Who is unethical then? Who is to blaim? And who is liabel?

As I said, I do not think this project is going to unite the business, only make us fight more and give the press more bullets. I will actually claim that the moralists continious hunt for ethical standars is one of the very reasons we see all that bad press. I think you are feeding them. It makes me wounder what your real goals are and the reson I brought religion into this discussion: Is the goal ethics, just for the sake of it, or a healthy business?

[seobook]

Mikkel's post has inspired me to try and make my point again.
We shouldn't try and organise ethics. We can debate ethics until we're blue in the face.
agreed, ethics is typically a poor thing to guage SEO by.

We should try and bring some professional accountability to the industry. We won't be treated like professionals until we act like professionals.
I think this kinda happens somewhat on its own. When tons of people want you to work for them obviously they are viewing you in a favorable light and as a professional.

I like the watchdog idea because the watchdog can collect complaints (made by customers; for whatever reason, spam, billing, holding on to domains, blackmail, etc) and can inform members of the public who go there to research. SEO's don't have to register with the watchdog (they're a start-up, say) but then they can't reassure would-be-clients by saying that they're a registered member.
I do not think you need a watch dog organization for this. hint: search any major search engine for traffic power and read through the top 30 results. the internet as a whole is a watch dog...

I don't think the search engines need to be involved in this watch dog. Companies which make TV sets aren't involved in the TV Advert complaints procedures either.
odd that if people effectively used them to do research prior to spending money that there would be no need for a watch dog organization.

Here's a question; if you don't do anything naughty, if you treat your clients well, why wouldn't you register with a neutral third party and record that fact?
perhaps I do not want to pay any review fees or live in a country where review fees would be prohibitively expensive.

perhaps I do not want my competitors to know I exist.

-----

I am sure Danny would like to improve the general viewpoint of SEO but many of the people who complain about it are stuck on the us vs them concept and may actually be complaining as a sort of self promotion or just to hear themselves type.

it does not matter if you or I use cloaking. it matters if we cloak without telling a person that is what we are doing.

almost every sticky point falls under about a dozen different ideas at the most. if many people really want to help and really would be interested in pointing at it then a simple 20 question questioneer would suffice.

I think if a large portion of the SEO community really wanted to get back behind some organizational type idea then a completely independant completely free website (with no "hosting provided by" or "maintained by" type preferential connections to any seo) which should host a list of questions that people should ask their seo provider prior to paying money.

it should state something along the lines of

"when you buy a car there are lemon laws. seo is something where there are no exact rules to. some call it an art, some call it a science. no matter what it is called there is a certain level of risk associated with ANY SEO.

it is important that you understand what risks are associated with your SEO provider and we feel the following questions should be asked to your SEO provider BEFORE SPENDING ANY MONEY.

q1
q2

in addition feel free to search major search engines for feedback on your potential SEO provider. also ask to contact clients and perhaps ask various forums for opinions of your prospective provider..."

[Alan Perkins]

The topic of the thread is "Improving the reputation of the SEM Industry".

At this point, SEM consists broadly of PPC, paid inclusion and SEO, and the SEM industry consists broadly of search engines, marketing companies and consultancies, and some ancillary product and service providers such as PositionTech or Clicktracks.

IMO search engines are in a position to self-govern the aspects which they control and for which they receive an income - namely, paid inclusion and PPC. It's possible for search engines to fail in this role, leading to complaints by people and organizations such as ConsumerAlert, and investigations by organizations such as the FTC and ASA.

However, it is not possible for search engines to govern the aspects which they do not control and for which they receive no income, and here I'm talking about SEO. It is not the search engines' role to dictate how to create Web sites. It is the search engines' role to react to how Web sites are created and crawl, index and rank those sites accordingly. If you want a search engine to tell you how to create a site then you have the wrong idea about SEO, IMO.

I would guess that less than 1% of SEOs in the world actually perform SEO in a way that search engines would find acceptable. So why ask or expect search engines to regulate the industry? The simplest response is to close the industry down!

IMO, if there is to be an acceptable SEO industry then the industry has to make itself acceptable. That means that 1% has to draw a clear dividing line between itself and the other 99%, then try to get other SEOs to cross that line.

In the past, I've laid out my opinions on what's acceptable and what's not in the form of broad principles. Some of those principles ended up being published in search engine guidelines. But blindly following guidelines is not the answer. If all of the guidelines were removed today, nothing would change in terms of what could get you penalized. And you could be doing things today that aren't in the guidelines that will get you penalized in future.

Some people, IMO, use the guidelines as a crutch to compensate for their own lack of understanding (I don't mean to sound harsh when saying that :)). Those people may then blame search engines for their own failings when they are penalized for doing things that weren't mentioned in the guidelines at the time they were doing them. It's time those people who want to do things right learnt to do them right without needing guidelines. Then the industry reputation would improve because it would consist of people who knew what they were doing, rather than needing to be told.

As for people who insist it is their right to attempt to deceive search engines into providing a placement/position/prominence than the search engine would provide in the absence of deception - good luck to those people. The problem for the SEM industry is that those people claim to be a part of the industry. If their claim is valid, then the industry deserves its reputation because there are a lot of people like that!

IMO, deception of search engines to achieve enhanced placement/position/prominence in search results constitutes deceptive advertising in those search results. Deceptive advertising is not an activity I would want to associate with the industry as a whole. It could even lead to an FTC investigation of the SEO industry, if there was an industry to investigate. :)

[Alan Perkins]

[LOL - This post is in response to Mikkel's post below. I'm not a clairvoyant .. something has gone wrong with the server!]
It would probably be a good place to start to bring this to the attention of the engines. Just take a look at what you see across the various paid programs - this is all stuff they approved. A lot of that would any of us call spam if we found it in the edtorial results. :)
Agreed. :) If you had an SEM industry body (as opposed to just an SEO industry body), then part of its remit could be to regulate search engines themselves - to attempt to avoid the involvement of external regulators such as the FTC.

The FTC has already investigated the SEM industry once and found that it was possible to advertise deceptively in search results using paid inclusion or PPC.

IMO it is also possible to advertise deceptively in search results using SEO and this is partly responsible for the bad reputation of the SEM industry.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> Deceptive advertising is not an activity I would want to associate with the industry as a whole.

It would probably be a good place to start to bring this to the attention of the engines. Just take a look at what you see across the various paid programs - this is all stuff they approved. A lot of that would any of us call spam if we found it in the edtorial results. :)

[bwelford]

However, it is not possible for search engines to govern the aspects which they do not control and for which they receive no income, and here I'm talking about SEO. It is not the search engines' role to dictate how to create Web sites. It is the search engines' role to react to how Web sites are created and crawl, index and rank those sites accordingly.
The Search Engines must be responsible for what they publish. IMHO it would be naive and incompetent for them to say we merely apply a mathematical search algorithm and publish the results. If they do, then they are part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the group of website owners who use "Worst Practices" rather than "Best Practices".

As I said earlier, the simplest solution is for these two groups who are creating the problem to interact in such a way that the problem ceases to exist. Why all the rest of you need to spend enormous efforts on 'Improving The Reputation' is beyond me. In some ways it's very much like the way a good set of Moderators ensure a Forum has the right stuff. If they do it well, they're hardly visible, as I suggested elsewhere (http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=77323#77323).

[Wail]

The Search Engines must be responsible for what they publish. IMHO it would be naive and incompetent for them to say we merely apply a mathematical search algorithm and publish the results.

That's exactly what they do.

Google didn't take out the JewWatch site from its results for that very reason.

If search engines were responsible for what they publish would that mean Google was a pornographer?

If I find a building company in a search engine, who don't build my garage correctly is Yahoo then legally responsible for that?

[Alan Perkins]

The Search Engines must be responsible for what they publish. They are. That doesn't mean they should dictate how to create Web sites. :)
As I said earlier, the simplest solution is for these two groups who are creating the problem to interact in such a way that the problem ceases to exist.Disregarding paid inclusion and paid placement for a moment, only one group is creating the problem - the group you call website owners who use "Worst Practices". That group is not going to respond to any call to improve the reputation of the SEM industry. They don't care about the reputation of the SEM industry. If the SEM industry cares about its reputation, it has to distance itself from that group.

[I, Brian]

only one group is creating the problem - the group you call website owners who use "Worst Practices".
Would these "worst practices" involve cloaking -> the delivery of significantly different *content* to human users and specified search engines, such as Googlebots? :)

http://www.webworkshop.net/seoforum/viewtopic.php?t=2196

[dannysullivan]

A comment on this:

Joe Public does not expect to have to learn all about the law, medicine and engineering to choose a professional when they feel sick, have a toothache or need something designed/built.
Of course they do. Every profession you named is a big problem. Need a lawyer? How do you know who is the quality one is? Need a good doctor? Where's the master list of all the best ones in your area?

People are always asking each other for recommendations because there are great differences in ability. And yep, you do have people in other professions who may cheat their clients, as well. SEM is hardly unique in this.

The discussion has been really great, but I want to highlight what I think are three key issues.

1) Some SEM firms may have unsavory business practices. They may charge a lot for little actual work, or work that has no real impact, for example.

This issue is NOT unique to SEM. Pick an industry, and you can find examples of this. It would be helpful for potential clients to consult with a centralized complaints database -- but actually, you can argue that things like the BBB and other organizations may already encompass these firms.

2) Some SEM firms may be successful in getting clients quality traffic; some may not. Forget the "how they do it" part. Who is simply good and bad from a traffic point of view -- consumers might like ratings like that.

3) Some SEM firms may undertake actions that cause clients to get banned by search engines. This is something that ONLY the search engines can speak with authority about. Providing consumers with a list of rules to ask their SEM firm about isn't a solution. That's because even if we all universally agree that "gibberish doorway pages" are a spam tactic, as Jill has said well before, a firm just says, "oh no, we don't do that. we use highly targeted zebra pages. those are perfectly ok!"

It's the third point I'm most interested in. It's the third point that I think makes the most sense for a starting point and would argue is most necessary.

Want to find out about 1 and 2? Talk with some references. If you do that, you should get a pretty good idea if the firm will be suitable to you. People can lie about references, of course -- but both 1 and 2 have starting places.

Want to find out about 3? Only the search engines will be able to say. In large degree, it doesn't matter whether you agree with Google or Yahoo's rules or not. If they throw you out, your out -- and if you are considering a third party firm to help you, you might want to be able to verify any history of this.

I don't know that any one group is going to provide 1, 2 & 3 -- plus other things I've named.

Let me flip things back to PR, because I think that's most akin to SEO. There aren't rules. Sorry, there aren't. There are what many people might consider some acceptable standards of behavior. But PR and marketing firms have been successful in getting great publicity (ie: wins) but not always following the rules (oops, Janet, sorry your top slipped off on national TV. we know it was just an accident).

Again, I get bad PR coming at me all the time. Bad, bad, bad. And some of the people who have these firms doing their PR, heck, they might be getting totally ripped off. But who set the rules for PR? Where's the licensing board to oversee if you can send out a press release?

We act like SEO needs to be regulated because we think it's something special. It's not. It's just another industry. It has things unique to it, bad and good.
SEO is filthy most of the time.
According to what? Which survey? What numbers? I couldn't say this. I don't even know the extent of the SEO industry. Are we counting in anyone who just does submission? And if it's so filthy, why do the search engines offer advice to people on how to do it? Why do they let people advertise their services? Why have some even hired SEO firms to help them promote themselves?

I'm not disagreeing SEO has a bad reputation, and there's plenty of people who hang a shingle that you should be wary of. But there's plenty of good with SEO. Yes, plenty of good people who do a real service helping others get found on search engines.

Check out theHave I been bad??? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=558) thread. You've got someone who just wants his book web site to show up on Google over there. No domain name of his own, hosted on GeoCities, built in Frames. These are easy SEO fixes. It's a mystery to him. For someone who knows SEO, you're a savior for making some of these simple fixes. And they seem simple to you because you KNOW this stuff. We dismiss it as easy. It's not easy. It something you've learned, knowledge you've gained and something that many, many people with web sites appreciate when you help them get listed.

So to bring it back -- SEO is just another industry, and what I'm tired of is the idea that since it is not held to higher standards than other industries, it needs to be called useless, horrible, filthy or simply dismissed. In many ways, it's an unfair burden being placed on it.

But unfair or not, I do think the industry has to shoulder it somehow. It does need to come up with some ways to reassure would-be clients, lest everyone be dismissed as a scam artist. And item 3 to me remains a starting place.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Disregarding paid inclusion and paid placement for a moment, only one group is creating the problem - the group you call website owners who use "Worst Practices".

I think that is a very limted view on the case. As mentioned by many other posters search engines is as large a part of this "reputation problem" as anyone else in this industry.

As long as search engines do not remove spam that has been reported to them, as long as they continue to place spammy sites at the top of SERPS (even the ones easy to identify) and as long as search engines kick sites for no apparent reason that are not spamming they sure do take a very active part in the reputation problem, i must say.

What I really do not understand is why ethics should play such a big role in this industry. As others have mentioned, where are the ethics in PR? There are the PR agens that get you continous good media coverage and there are the ones that don't. Thats it. Why should we be so bothered with ethics at all.

Maybe, as I suggested, it is the very fact that we keep bringing up this, shooting at ourselfes that fuel the bad press ... I do not see many other industries where all the major players constantly talk about all the bad seeds in their own business.

[massa]

BRAVO! >standing ovation <

It's just business.

[Alan Perkins]

3) Some SEM firms may undertake actions that cause clients to get banned by search engines. This is something that ONLY the search engines can speak with authority about.

It's the third point I'm most interested in. It's the third point that I think makes the most sense for a starting point and would argue is most necessary.

...

Want to find out about 3? Only the search engines will be able to say. In large degree, it doesn't matter whether you agree with Google or Yahoo's rules or not. If they throw you out, your out -- and if you are considering a third party firm to help you, you might want to be able to verify any history of this.

...

But unfair or not, I do think the industry has to shoulder it somehow. It does need to come up with some ways to reassure would-be clients, lest everyone be dismissed as a scam artist. And item 3 to me remains a starting place.
You seem to be wanting search engines to regulate and assume responsibility for an industry they are not part of - the SEO industry. Search engines are part of the SEM industry. SEOs are part of the SEM industry. But search engines aren't part of the SEO industry.

I disagree that only the search engines can speak with authority about what might cause clients to get banned. I wouldn't be capable of doing my job properly if I couldn't speak with authority about what might cause my clients to be banned.

IMO, the SEO industry has to take responsibilty for itself and not expect to be nannied by search engines.

[Wail]

A comment on this:

So to bring it back -- SEO is just another industry, and what I'm tired of is the idea that since it is not held to higher standards than other industries, it needs to be called useless, horrible, filthy or simply dismissed. In many ways, it's an unfair burden being placed on it.

But unfair or not, I do think the industry has to shoulder it somehow. It does need to come up with some ways to reassure would-be clients, lest everyone be dismissed as a scam artist. And item 3 to me remains a starting place.

Item 3 deals with those SEO firms who have had clients kicked out of search engines.

Item 3 is specifically search engine related, it's the SEO ticket on the list in fact.

I think we should treat SEO like any other industry. That's why I don't see item 3 as the natural starting point. If you start here then you're making the assumption, or leading others to believe, that there's something different about the industry.

Here in the UK lawyers who break the rules loose the bar - are kicked out by their in-house watchdog. Bad doctors are struck off the list - by their in-house watchdog. I don't think these watchdogs first started to find lawyers who said something stupid in court and got their client an even worse sentence or those doctors who made their patient worse. In both cases the watchdogs were set up to protect the profession as a whole and any "crime" committed by a member which would threaten the image of the professional was investigated and recorded. Okay, the difference is that we're never going to see a situation where you have to register with a watchdog in order to practise SEO.

I think the starting point is a place where clients can go - and SEO firms can invite them to check - which says, "This SEO has not had any complaints made against it".

It's also worth stressing that the SEO industry shouldn't draw its own line in the sand. Saying, "As long as the SEO firm hasn't had its own web page kicked out of an index" as a measure is a bit like a lawyer saying, "As long as the firm hasn't had a Type 23 Writ leveled against it".

[Alan Perkins]

think that is a very limted view on the case. As mentioned by many other posters search engines is as large a part of this "reputation problem" as anyone else in this industry. Spam wouldn't be in the results if there was no spam created. It's up to search engines how they deal with spam, and they live or die on the quality of their results, so how they choose to deal with spam is literally their business. The fact that it is created by people who claim to be SEOs is our business if we are concerned about the reputation of our industry.

What I really do not understand is why ethics should play such a big role in this industry. As others have mentioned, where are the ethics in PR? There are the PR agens that get you continous good media coverage and there are the ones that don't. Thats it. Why should we be so bothered with ethics at all.
Who mentioned ethics? :D

However, most professional industries do have a code of ethics, so why shouldn't our industry have that?

[Wail]

IMO, the SEO industry has to take responsibilty for itself and not expect to be nannied by search engines.

Agreed.
For lots of reasons.

Why should the search engines have to deal with the costs of queries from would-be-clients. Who decides when a search engine has enough status to assume the position of Judge. I've a small search engine on my hobby site you know! It uses MySQL and LIKE="%keyword%".

What if Google wants to promote 301 and Yahoo wants to promote meta refresh. If Google wants to promote Atom and Yahoo RSS? There a commerical incentive for search engines to back SEO firms who do things their prefered way too. "Dear client, you spend too much on AdWords. This organic campaign will cut your Google bill by 30% - and you'll be able to invest that in Overture's new Local Match! Trust us, we're certified by Yahoo's Good SEO program!"

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Sorry, but I fail to see many similar industries with global codes of ethics that works. Not just local or country codes but true global ones that really works.

I came from the music industry before I junmped on the web . In the 15 years I was making my money on music I do not think I ever heard the word "ethics" once (except for a few hippie songs).

One of the reason I like the SEO business is the same as why I loved the music business: It's a good place to be creative. You get honored by creativity and I like that. Codes of ethics or best practise rules that everyone is supposed to follow tend to do most good for the less creative minds.

[Alan Perkins]

Codes of ethics or best practise rules that everyone is supposed to follow tend to do most good for the less creative minds.Yes, those creative accounting types at Arthur Andersen did a lot of good for Enron - before they were discovered.

Nobody is saying that creativity has to be stemmed. It's just creative deception that is a problem.

[Andy AtkinsKruger]

Wow what a thread. The industry does need to clean up its act - but it's not going to happen overnight because there are always new twists and it's wishful thinking to expect a white knight to make everything better. :mad:

Most of our new clients have had a bad experience with someone optimising their site. They come to us by referral - usually - looking for someone to help.

In a new industry, where there are lots of sharks, the only answer is to stick to your guns and offer professionalism and quality all the time and to build reputation. In the end it will win out - even if there are tough turbulent times.

How does Traffic Power feel about reputation at the moment?

I'd personnally like Google et al to flag sites that have abused and put them at the bottom of the listings - so its clearly visible that there's a problem - but I can also see there are lots of issues with that - so I don't think it will happen.

Then I'd like Yahoo to stop tinkering about with it's paid inclusion and to get back on the ethical path. I do think that will happen because in the end they'll have to protect their reputation - otherwise people like Danny will keep writing about them critically!!!

And I promise we'll be good - of course. But long term our clients will know that too.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> Yes, those creative accounting types at Arthur Andersen did a lot of good for Enron - before they were discovered.

There is a huge difference. Even the most spammy SEOs are not braking any laws. Search engine spam is not illegal and will most likely never be.

As far as I understand (not being a lawyer) the types Enron did illegal things. I do not suggest anyone should do anything that is illegal

[Alan Perkins]

There is a huge difference. Even the most spammy SEOs are not braking any laws. Search engine spam is not illegal and will most likely never be.That's your opinion. Some forms of SE spam have been found to be illegal, e.g. bait and switch from disney to p0rn, passing off, etc. IMO many other forms of SE spam are illegal, in some countries at least. It just hasn't been tested yet.

Also, as the TrafficPower case shows, there is also the question of the legality of claims made to clients and methods of marketing to new clients. These factors all affect the reputation of the industry, even though the legality hasn't yet been tested.

[Bernard]

Of course they do. Every profession you named is a big problem. Need a lawyer? How do you know who is the quality one is? Need a good doctor? Where's the master list of all the best ones in your area?

People are always asking each other for recommendations because there are great differences in ability. And yep, you do have people in other professions who may cheat their clients, as well. SEM is hardly unique in this.

Choosing the best practitioner (what you argued against) is a wholly different subject than whether or not the practitioner is a member of a respected profession. There is a difference between an industry and a profession. IMO, real professional organizations offer respectability for their industries. Even taking law, where here in the states the profession is the butt of many jokes, the American Bar Association is respected. Right now, SEM is just an industry. One way to improve its reputation is to elevate it to the level of a profession. As Alan mentioned, the process for doing this cannot be all inclusive.

The discussion has been really great, but I want to highlight what I think are three key issues.

1) Some SEM firms may have unsavory business practices. They may charge a lot for little actual work, or work that has no real impact, for example.

...

2) ...

3) Some SEM firms may undertake actions that cause clients to get banned by search engines. ...

IMO, #1 is just as important to the reputation of the industry as #3. Not so much the ones who overcharge for actual, useful work, but moreso for those charging for services which they know will have no effect. This is fraud IMO and contributes immensly to the negative reputation for the industry. A professional organization could solve both problems IMO (because the bad apples would not be professionally accredited, the industry does not get tarred with every victim).

So to bring it back -- SEO is just another industry, and what I'm tired of is the idea that since it is not held to higher standards than other industries, it needs to be called useless, horrible, filthy or simply dismissed. In many ways, it's an unfair burden being placed on it.

I do not perceive the industry as being held to a "higher" standard than others. I think the problem is that the industry has too many sharks and Joe Public does not know enough to differentiate them from the fish.

[dannysullivan]

Just some more fuel for the fire. Now we've got a Google representative at Ad:Tech saying according (http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/07/googles-patrick-keane-afraid-of-search.html) to Andy Beal:
[Google] basically replied that there is no way to improve your rankings on Google and that any claims by a SEO company were false

Wow. Right there with Andy in saying that this just absolutely isn't the case. SEO companies can't guarantee a ranking boost, but they certainly can improve rankings for some sites.

FYI, Google on its own web site provides guidelines (http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html) for those considering SEO services but says from the outset:
Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted.

And, of course, Google provides a number of tips (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html) that indeed are intended to help people rank better, which runs contrary to this recent statement that SEO firms can't help. Yep, plenty of them seem simple -- at least, to those who deal with this. But again, if you are coming into things from outside the industry, this stuff can seem scary -- and you may prefer to have someone help you.

[I, Brian]

So, ultimately, the consumer needs some form of assurance that the company in question is professionally capable of representing their interests in a faithful and skilled manner.

That would mean not trying to muddy the debate by the old chestnut of "unethical" versus "ethical" practice - by way of distinguishing between methods that may help a relevant site/page gain elevated relevant results in search engines.

Traffic Power seems to be a rather extreme example of clients suffering as a result of their sites being penalised - but the majority of my clients have suffered former SEO work in the manner of John's Scott's experience - spending thousands of pounds for basic SEO copywriting, under the promise of high rankings. Automated software submission systems seem to be a particular common practice in this vein - easy promises never realised.

So what would the solution be there? A reputable directory of SEO practitioners?

The trouble with that is that someone ultimately tries to force the definition of SEO to exclude relevant SEO practices they do not personally agree with. SEO consultant is probably a good example of that.

Presuming we got past that red-herring, and offered a rather inclusive directory of "professional" SEO companies, then how would inclusion be realised, maintained, and demonstrated?

How would anybody be able to judge whether a company may or may not be involved in practices that ultimately defraud the client?

And how would companies otherwise decided favourably in this manner therefore protect themselves from malicious complaints and reports (in that regard, I think Google has it right to have an official policy on penalising via algo, not reports).

And then, presuming the previous two hurdles were overcome, how does someone then lay claim to such an accredited group? A graphic on the website? Ah, but then some fly-by-night cowboy is regardless going to copy/paste such a graphic to their own website, make money on easy promises accredited by such an organisation. And the consumer can hardly be expected to be any the wiser - excepting to know not to trust online accredited SEO logos.

OR perhaps that's all part of the learning process- maybe no system is infallible, nor expected to be infallible. But, as a basis for increased consumer awareness - may work in the medium to long term.

Of course, such an idea is always going to have it's own problems - a headache indeed. And it would require someone with real authority and impartiality to implement such a project. Search Engine Watch is very well placed for something like that, of course.

However, would anybody take it seriously? Would it be seen as a "pure-as-the-driven-snow whitehat" list? Or as an unnecessary complication? And who is going to care to start shunting their PR to a site just because they are accredited? :)

If an inclusive system of SEO - on the basis of working relevant method, no matter the form - is practical, then for the most part it might well be acceptable to the larger part of the SEO industry. But no matter how hard you try, there is always going to be someone left out. It's a case of how many, and will that ultimately flaw the project.

If nothing else, drop a couple of grand on Seth Goldin's lap and ask him to devise a marketable, if not entirely practical, method. :)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

> That's your opinion.

Yes, Allan, thats all we are discussing her: Oppinions. You have one, I have one and others have their own. We are all just arguing our stand point. This is not about facts, it's about different valid points of view

:)

[I, Brian]

Just some more fuel for the fire. Now we've got a Google representative at Ad:Tech saying according (http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/07/googles-patrick-keane-afraid-of-search.html) to Andy Beal:
to quote from the article:


Oh, how I wish it had. [tick....] Patrick basically replied that there is no way to improve your rankings on Google and that any claims by a SEO company were false. [tick...tick] He suggested that a few simple "design changes" were all that could be done and that a SEO firm wasn't needed. [tick....BOOM!!!!]
Well, I guess it's in the interests of search engines to spread misinformation, keep the industry disreptuable, in the hope that no one will buy.

After all, to claim that any good SEO can manipulate a billion dollar company's rankings, I guess is like claiming to be able to open bank vaults. And with Google turning so much to AdWords as an income stream, that potentially pits SEO's directly against Google's financial interests - SEO or Adwords for online profit.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Some may think search engines do not have a stake in the SEO business but with a statement like that from Google they apparently seem to think so.

[Alan Perkins]

Some may think search engines do not have a stake in the SEO business but with a statement like that from Google they apparently seem to think so.
Anybody outside the industry can comment on the industry. That's what got us started, wasn't it [Seth Godin].

FWIW, I completely disagree with the Google rep's comments. As do the people who filed Google's SEC filing for their IPO (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm#toc16167_3):

We are susceptible to index spammers who could harm the integrity of our web search results.

There is an ongoing and increasing effort by “index spammers” to develop ways to manipulate our web search results. For example, because our web search technology ranks a web page’s relevance based in part on the importance of the web sites that link to it, people have attempted to link a group of web sites together to manipulate web search results. We take this problem very seriously because providing relevant information to users is critical to our success. If our efforts to combat these and other types of index spamming are unsuccessful, our reputation for delivering relevant information could be diminished. This could result in a decline in user traffic, which would damage our business.

[Brad]

There are legit 'professions' and phoney ones. Law, engineering, medicine are examples of legitimate professions where a high degree of knowledge is required.

There are also a lot of industries that try to professionalise only to create an artificial barrier to competition and to create artificial scarcity - read that 'keep prices high.' "I've got mine, but I don't want any old person horning in on my action."

SEO is not rocket science. Anyone can learn how to at least do basic SEO so there is no highly technical knowledge just a lot of time and the ability to learn and notice patterns. The point being you are never going to make SEO into a real profession until it really does take a Phd to rank a site.

>>Arthur Andersen

Those guys were all professionals. CPA's, degrees, licensed, professional association members. None of that stopped them from cooking the books on demand. That did not make them honest or trustworthy.

As far as putting the search engines in charge, that is like letting the fox guard the hen house. :D

[rcjordan]

>> There is a terrible stink of hypocrisy about the entire "ethics" debate.

>That is probably the single statement in this thread that I agree the most with.

Danny, if you're into setting examples, it seems you need to start housecleaning at SES.


>Of course if they are you will never be able to find them anyhow.

London. September 18th.

[dannysullivan]

Danny, if you're into setting examples, it seems you need to start housecleaning at SES.
Because I have panels telling people how to spam? I don't. That's not personally what I believe in, and it's never been something I've said here at SEW or pushed through the SES shows.

Because some people who speak may have spammed? If they have, I don't put them on panels telling the audience to spam. They may be involved in panels where I think they have useful knowledge that anyone can benefit from. I think it's very important to have a wide-range of viewpoints. That's especially so given that sometimes what the search engines say -- and how they actually operate -- may be much different.

But let's say I didn't want anyone to speak who had ever had a page removed from a search engine. Where do I go for this proof? Ask the search engines for an official rundown? They don't provide that.

The main point is that I'm not trying to set examples. I'm saying that the SEM industry has a problem, a bad reputation. I think many, many would agree with that. I also think many people in the industry would like to see that reputation improve.

I don't see the solution as some giant whitelist of "Good SEO" companies or a blacklist of "Bad SEO" companies. The debate on this thread underscores the many good points about how anyone determines that. By performance? By pricing. By lack of spam history? By doing something borderline spam? By doing something someone honestly considers fine but a real purist might condemn?

While I don't see that as a solution, others do and there are resources that have tried to create this. Perhaps they'll finally gain widespread acceptance. If so, then perhaps that will help improve things for some.

Back to my broken record. I do think it would be useful for someone who wants to hire a SEM firm to be able to check with a search engine to see if there are any reported problems. What's wrong with that? Want to know if a firm has had trouble. It would be nice for Google, Yahoo and the gang to tell you.

Why don't they? A big reason is fear of being sued. So make it voluntary. Want to participate in the reporting program? Then you give them the OK to disclose anything they've written you up for.

The beauty of this is that should you do something that's technically spamming (say the NPR cloaking), but the search engine reviews it and finds it no harm, you don't get dinged. It makes things more flexible than trying to create rules for each and every technique.

Don't like the idea? Then don't participate. What's the harm if you don't? Some clients may ask why you don't and perhaps perceive those firms that do to be "better" or "approved" by search engines. Yes, that's a downside. But for those who have an anything goes attitude with search engines, I'd imagine they'd be pretty forthcoming with clients. "We think the rules are silly -- who cares how we get you that top ranking, as long as we don't mislead consumers." That's the familiar argument. And those companies can keep at it.

So why bother? Doesn't that behavior still hurt the overall reputation. Perhaps. But at least one portion of the industry can move on. And I think the move would help would-be consumers of SEM.

The idea might not go anywhere. The in-fighting and finger-pointing and debate we've had within the industry may likely continue. But it would be nice if we could somehow agree on something just as a start.

[rcjordan]

>Because some people who speak may have spammed? If they have, I don't put them on panels telling the audience to spam. They may be involved in panels where I think they have useful knowledge that anyone can benefit from. I think it's very important to have a wide-range of viewpoints.

To quote, well, you... "That's the familiar argument." Giving voice to them in any form/manner doesn't help polish an image.


>Then don't participate. What's the harm if you don't?

Your firm, particularly if it's a small independent one, would quickly be left out of the good ol' boy club.

[rcjordan]

<added>

BTW, I don't think anyone has mentioned the New Yorker article. SEO = RACKETEERS. (What's next, Ladies Home Journal or Southern Living? Or maybe America's Most Wanted?)

" ...Less innocent is the industry dedicated to helping Web sites maximize their Google rankings—the racket known as “search engine optimization.” Some American companies have armies of programmers toiling away in Bangalore solely to boost their Google rankings. Much of what the “optimizers” do is reasonable, helping companies do a better job of presenting content, using keywords, and building pages to which others will want to link. (These are termed “white hat” tactics.) But there are also plenty of black hats—known as “index spammers”—who have simply adapted the methods and tricks of the old political machines."

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040531ta_talk_surowiecki

[dannysullivan]

Giving voice to them in any form/manner doesn't help polish an image.
I disagree. I think there's a big difference between the way people are involved and the context in which they are presented. I respect your right to disagree with that, of course :)

Your firm, particularly if it's a small independent one, would quickly be left out of the good ol' boy club.
Why? Say Google says they'll let anyone register as part of the voluntary reporting database. How does that leave a small firm out?

[Jill Whalen]

The main point is that I'm not trying to set examples. I'm saying that the SEM industry has a problem, a bad reputation. I think many, many would agree with that. I also think many people in the industry would like to see that reputation improve.

Many do.

But from the posts here and at other forums, many obviously do not want to see it improve. It's in their own best interests if the world thinks that SEO is "how to spam the search engines."

That's many people's livelihood. The more we get the word out that SEO doesn't have to be done through tricks and deception, the more scared these people obviously get that they won't have any more business. So of course they have no interest in a group that explains exactly how to do SEO in a manner that has no risks, yet still works.

But that's okay. We all know that there is no chance whatsoever for all the various types of SEOs to be one big happy family. That's not a problem for me, and I'm sure it's not a problem for those who don't want to be associated with me or my SEO methods.

The problem is when we're all painted with the same brush and we ARE associated with each other even though we don't want to be. Seth Godin hears about the very common type of SEO that many people at this very forum today represent and he thinks that's what ALL SEOs do. My interest (selfish as it may be) is to figure out a way to make sure that the world knows that there are ways of doing SEO that the search engines will buy into, and that there are SEOs who are using these methods and have always been using these methods.

All SEO is not spam. And no matter how many times some of you try to make others believe that it is, it still won't make it be true.

My mission for a long time has been to teach non-spammy methods to other people, and I gladly do it for free through my newsletter, my forum posts, and emails to individuals who are just starting out in the business. The more I get the word out on how very possible it is to get high rankings, traffic and sales through methods that do not involve tricks and spam, the better it is for everyone (except the spammers of course).

It has nothing to do with ethics. As much as many of you like to call me "one of those ethicals" or "white hat" or whatever the term of the week is, I have rarely ever even used the word ethical in any of my writings. It's not about anyone being better than anyone else, but it is about us being different and having different views about things.

I don't care if you want to spam the engines. Go for it if that's what you like to do. I won't be reporting you or telling your mothers. You have to live with your own conscience and if it's not a problem for you, then it's not a problem for me.

Just don't try to convince the rest of the world that it's the only way, or even the best way to get high rankings.

What any organization that I finally have anything to do with will do is simply define some very basic standards as I and other like-minded individuals see them. Even if it's only two or three people in the organization at the end of the day, I don't care. Go ahead, call me an elitist snob. Call me whatever you want. I've already been called every name in the book. I don't care.

Anyone who believes that SEO can be done without tricking the engines and who no longer wishes to be painted with the same brush as those who don't believe it is welcome to contact me to see what more we can do about it.

Oh, and Danny, although I think it's possibly a worthwhile endeavor, since no spammer in their right mind would sign up to be on the search engine's list (unless they are really, really dumb and in my experience most spammers are actually pretty smart!), I'm not clear on how the list could mean much. I suppose it could give people at least some good names to choose from, so that part could definitely be helpful.

Oh, yeah and one more thing before I go...

That post above by Alan Perkins (his first one) was probably one of the best posts I've ever read in my history of reading posts. (And I've read many posts in my time.) Every paragraph, sentence and even word was perfect and I couldn't have said it better myself. :) If there's anyone else who agrees, again, please feel free to contact me to discuss further.

[rustybrick]

I want to see the reputation of SEM improve. I am up for helping out in any way I can. :)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Just don't try to convince the rest of the world that it's the only way, or even the best way to get high rankings.

The first part I think most can agree to. I do. But the second part will always be open for discussion. I am not saying either "side" is right or wrong, just that there will forever be valid and good arguments for a whole array of ways to do SEO, some you like, some I like, and some you or I don't. I do not think it's so easy and black and white.

One thing I personally do not like is any kind of company that is trying to cheat clients into buying something else than they think they are getting. Or hold back important information about any risks invlolved in the purchase. But that goes for any business - not just SEOs. I like honesty and transparancy. But as long as there is a total honesty and transparancy with the clients I do think there is a very wide array of help I can give. I do not neccesarily have to feel responsible for the tachtiques a client decide to implement - for example cloaking. If that's what he want, and he knows exactly the risks of it, then why should I not consult him on how to do it in a way that is most likley to not desturb search user experience and get him banned?


The beauty of this is that should you do something that's technically spamming (say the NPR cloaking), but the search engine reviews it and finds it no harm, you don't get dinged. It makes things more flexible than trying to create rules for each and every technique.

Of all the ideas that have come up in this thread for some kind of "policing" I like this the most. Mainly because it is volentary and it's flexible.

[searchengineblog.com]

[Google] basically replied that there is no way to improve your rankings on Google and that any claims by a SEO company were false

I'm not sure Google saying that should come as any surprise. Google has little to gain by SEO, and more to lose.

Again I ask what value does an SEO bring to Google? An SEO may do a few things that help (providing crawlability, convincing the publisher not to go the Flash route, convincing the client to put more content online etc) but that is of negligible benefit compared to the business threat they pose: the SEO takes money that would have gone to Adwords and co-opts their beloved brand in the process.

SEO (whitehat, blackhat, brownhat, bluehat) is in direct competition with paid placement. The only thing Google would possibly endorse is an activity that generates them revenue (SEM).

That's the bottom line. That's business.

[Jill Whalen]

I am not saying either "side" is right or wrong, just that there will forever be valid and good arguments for a whole array of ways to do SEO, some you like, some I like, and some you or I don't. I do not think it's so easy and black and white.

Agreed! I didn't say anything different than that.

And I don't expect most people to agree that my methods are the only way or the best way. I personally think they are, but that's just me. Again, I have no problem with you and whatever your methods are. And of course it has nothing to do with my feelings about you as a person. (I happen to know and like Mikkel very much! :) )

But, you would not be in my organization (or whatever it is I might choose to do down the line if I ever choose to do something) if you happen to use techniques as you have previously described. You are more than welcome to use them. Doesn't bother me in the least. But those techniques would definitely not fall within the standards that I would most likely set if I were to set standards.

Yes, what I'm talking about only serves to splinter SEOs further, but imo, I don't see any other way for getting the word out to the general public that they don't have to spam to get rankings. My mission is not the same as many of yours, and probably not even the same as Danny's although it's in the ballpark.

I'm just telling you all what my mission is and have no desire to force it upon anyone else, nor do I expect most of you to agree with it or abide by my own personal standards of SEO. I do feel that my mission can improve the image of some SEOs, but obviously it won't do anything to improve the image of a good portion of SEOs, as shown by most of the posts in this thread. For improving your images, I'm afraid you guys are on your own, because I don't have any desire to improve the image of SEOs who have no problem tricking the search engines, etc.

So maybe we should form 3 or 4 different sets of standards or organizations and people can choose to be in whichever one best fits their style? Companies can choose whichever type of marketing fits with theirs too that way. I know plenty of companies who aren't intersted in using my lily-white techniques because they don't feel they are aggressive enough for their own aggressive style. I'm sure they would be interested in choosing an SEO from a different group than mine.

[seobook]

So maybe we should form 3 or 4 different sets of standards or organizations and people can choose to be in whichever one best fits their style? Companies can choose whichever type of marketing fits with theirs too that way. I know plenty of companies who aren't intersted in using my lily-white techniques because they don't feel they are aggressive enough for their own aggressive style. I'm sure they would be interested in choosing an SEO from a different group than mine.

I think various subsets would open up lots more of the why we are better than them type of debates. I think perhaps agressiviness as a self describing rating might be a bit better, but I think the only way to effectively help people is to inform potential SEO buyers.

[Jill Whalen]

Aaron, no search engine is ever going to buy into any standards or organization if the groups goal is simply to ensure that the client is informed of the risks involved in the given SEO method.

That is if you care whether the search engines are involved. I imagine many of you don't care, nor would you want them to be.

It seems that Danny does want them to be involved.

[donut]

I'm not sure Google saying that should come as any surprise. Google has little to gain by SEO, and more to lose.

Again I ask what value does an SEO bring to Google?

Good, relevant results when done right. Happy searchers. Long term growth opportunities. Recommendations to buy AdWaors when the first page is just too competitive. Recommendations to buy AdWords when starting a new site. Recommendations of the value of maintaining both editorial and advertising positions on the SERP.

I can think of a lot of things SEO's offer the search engines. The ones who are really good at it, anyway.

[searchengineblog.com]

Good, relevant results when done right.

Ask Google if they need SEOs in order to provide relevant results. The answer is no.

Long term growth opportunities.

?

Recommendations to buy AdWaors when the first page is just too competitive. Recommendations to buy AdWords when starting a new site. Recommendations of the value of maintaining both editorial and advertising positions on the SERP.

That is SEM.

[NFFC]

>All SEO is not spam. And no matter how many times some of you try to make others believe that it is, it still won't make it be true.

It is, you need to accept this one fact, only then can you move forward;

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Continuing the biblical theme, let he [or in this case she] who has not sinned cast the first stone.

[Hungryfish]

I don't think the SEO industry will ever require a "Malpractice Insurance" type of situation to insure they operate with the most ethical practices in mind for thier client,as some may be indicating. In agreement with Jill and Danny, we may need to look into the future here if our industry is growing as rapidly as we believe to ensure the folks that are at the forefront and mentors of many of us continue to succeed.

In a discussion a few months ago with Terry Van Horne,he indicated the idea of developing a standardization for SEO's to participate in which may lead to some sort of "Certification" with a "best Practices" approach in mind. This type of thing may not be for everyone, but "Hey" look at these post and tell me their is no concern for the way that some 's SEO opt to conduct their business.
We all need to understand that we as SEO's- in a basement ,attic or Fifth Ave office learned from somewhere, and if you promote ethical methods of SEO, you deserve to be recognized for that. We as a SEO community are only as good as the people we follow.

[cjtripnewton]

If SEO and SEM firms would simply follow the AMA Full Code of Ethics (http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content1175.php), most of the reputation problems would eventually fade away.

Two major points:

1) Do no harm.
2) Tell the truth.

I realize that the statement is a major oversimplification, but it would be one heck of a start if we could get a similar code of ethics established at either http://www.sempo.com or http://www.seopros.org.

Disclaimer: Stop by and check out what we're trying to do at http://www.seopros.org.

[donut]

Ask Google if they need SEOs in order to provide relevant results. The answer is no.


Says you. When did you become a search engine? You look more like a blog to me. :eek:

[seobook]

Says you. When did you become a search engine? You look more like a blog to me. :eek:

most of the web naturally organizes itself. SEO usually is confined to a small part of the whole and SEO and other promotional efforts on the whole degrade search results at least as much as they improve them.

[cjtripnewton]

Yes, Google has needed SEO's in order to get many major corporate sites indexed, but Google is making progress every week. Now they're able to index things that we used to have to work hard to get indexed. Still, there are plenty of sites out there that Google just can't traverse, and that's the core reason for my continuing work in this industry. Software companies keep coming up with easier ways for companies to manage and maintain their websites, and every time they do, they put up a new wall in front of the major search engines. Much of our work is helping companies to work around the decisions they make about technology so that they can have ease-of-maintenance and still get indexed well by the search engines.

Your statement that Google doesn't need SEO's is much truer today than it was 5 years ago, but it isn't absolutely true, and it probably never will be.

On the other hand, plenty of people working in the SEO industry do end up making the results more frustrating for Google and for the end user, but their clients like winning - it means more business for them.

I've said it before here, but it bears repeating. You can learn almost everything you need to know about SEO by visiting http://www.w3.org/. If everyone built to standards, then your statement would be true. Google wouldn't need or want us. Until they do, there's a respected place for us.

At any rate, it's not up to Google. We flourish because companies buy websites that noone can find. We make it so that people can find them.

[searchengineblog.com]

Says you.

Read their SEC filing and tell me where it says Google need SEOs in order to return relevant results.

[DanThies]

Professional standards should encompass more than ethical practices in SEO. What gives the SEM industry a black eye isn't just SEO practices. What worries me more is the business practices, especially at the fringe. Whether or not you think it's okay to try and deceive a search engine, what really kills us is the people who try to deceive their clients and prospects.

A lot of "search engine spam" is created by people with good intentions. Anyone who wants to promote professional standards, had best be prepared to show these people alternatives to practices like cloaking. Personally, I haven't seen a case where cloaking is necessary, but the alternatives are not always obvious or people wouldn't do it.

[cjtripnewton]

"but the alternatives are not always obvious or people wouldn't do it."

Interesting post Dan. "Not always obvious" eh? Not always obvious is where you separate the wheat from the chaff, the intelligent from the average, the professional from the ametuer, you get my drift?

The best excuses I've heard for building doorway pages and for cloaking always include something about the client not allowing the consultant to make the changes they want to make to the site. In those cases, you should either get the client to sign a disclaimer that clearly lays out the risks, showing them the TOS for the search engines where the rules are laid out clearly, or you walk away. In my case, we simply persuade the client of the ignorant short-sideness of their view, or walk away. We haven't had to walk away from anything that we didn't really want to walk away from so far, but I'm sure we will eventually. That will be frustrating, but in the end, the clients always come back looking for legit answers after they've been burned.

[Jill Whalen]

CJ, you are correct. You walk away.

Clearly laying out the risks is not the answer. If everyone, EVERYONE walked away from those situations that they knew were bad, we wouldn't need these discussions.

Instead, too many "SEOs" are willing to do what the client asks them to do, even though it is not in the client's best interest.

Who's the expert? You or the client? Why put their site at risk (and tell them or not tell them...it's irrelevant) when there are alternatives?

[I, Brian]

Whether or not you think it's okay to try and deceive a search engine, what really kills us is the people who try to deceive their clients and prospects. Indeed, and perhaps this is the issue that should be the main focus of the discussion.

Otherwise we are going to keep running around in emotive circles, defining ethical issues by the relative terms of: "What 'I' do is acceptable, what 'others' do is unacceptable."

Also known as throwing stones in glasshouses.

As before, the entire industry is far too varied and complex to make single ground rules of practice that can realistically apply to all SEM markets.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Who's the expert? You or the client? Why put their site at risk (and tell them or not tell them...it's irrelevant) when there are alternatives?

There is allways risks - in SEO as in all other decissions you make for or within a company. Taking a risk is not bad. We all do that all the time in life in general and in the work we do. Most is usually very small risks and some are bigger but they are allways there. To me life or business has never been about not running any risks at all but knowing what the risks are before entering into something.

Small companies tend to take larger risks than large companies that have more to loose. I have done work for companies that are much more "conservative" than any of the most "whitehat" SEOs in here - last time it took me almost 6 month to get a couple of creatives approved in this company's legal department for P4P! Every single line have to go through legal. Thats their choice just like it is other companies choice to use more border line SEO, gurilla marketing, viral marketing, public happenings, public provokations, extreme PR campaigns or whatever. My job as a consultant is to help them utilize the means they have chosen to use the best possible way. I am not a priest or moralist that have to tell them whats right or wrong. I tell them what works and what don't, based on my experience, and I tell them about the risks I see invlolved in each of the methods on the table. My experience may not be the same as for example Jill's so off course I am not going to tell them the same.

I do have my personal limits for what I do too, but they are on a personal level and not something that have a general interest for others. I don't do gambling because it's not legal for me, living in Denmark. I do not do adult because I hate the sight of it and I don't do nazi or extreme hate sites. But thats just me and it has really nothing to do with our profession.


And of course it has nothing to do with my feelings about you as a person.

Absolutely! We are just discussing business strategies, SEO and the reputation of this trade. Just because we may disagree on something dosen't mean we can't be good friends. I disagree on many things with my very best friends. Thats not bad :)

[Alan Perkins]

I hear the risk argument a lot, but not a lot about what the risks are or why there are risks.

The potential risks to the client of choosing an "aggressive" strategy are:

Demotion or banning within the search results
Reputational damage
Loss of business
Legal action

These risks arise because of the need, by the search engine and society as a whole, to protect the integrity of the search results.

If, as an industry, we are prepared to compromise that integrity then IMO we deserve the reputation that comes with that.

[Andy AtkinsKruger]

Can we try and get a constructive outcome from this thread?

Why can't we - as a body of professional SEOs - create a web-based tool that enables clients to input the domain name of their site and all sites that point at that site, the most important three keywords/phrases and it will warn them if there are any signficantly unprofessional practices going on - or suspected?

Not a perfect solution - but maybe it would help? Perhaps under the auspices of SEMPO or SearchEngineWatch? It would help clients to understand that there is good, bad and downright dangerous?

Is it technically possible?

We could pay for it by each paying a small subscription? I'll volunteer £100 if enough people think it's worth a go? Maybe the search engines would sponsor it too?

[seobook]

Why can't we - as a body of professional SEOs - create a web-based tool that enables clients to input the domain name of their site and all sites that point at that site, the most important three keywords/phrases and it will warn them if there are any signficantly unprofessional practices going on - or suspected?

There is a great divide between the knowledge level of the average search engine engineer and the average SEO. A tool like this would be speculative and misinformed at best in my opinion.

A bet a ton of SEOs still have absolutely no idea what Google did last November. To be honest I know I am not 100% sure.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Allan, those risks exsist no matter if you engage in one or another type of SEO or in fact for most decissions you make for your company and the marketing you engage in.

As an example McDonnals did some pretty aggressive (off line) gurilla marketing last year here in copenhagen. They knew the risk and decided to go for it. Unfortunanately (for them) what they did turned out to be illegal an they paid the bill but that did not make anyone suggest that the advertising agency business is bad or "trickery" (even though it was an agency that did suggest this "spammy" campaign). The client (MCDonnal) knew they where on the border - indeed, that was the whole point of the campaign, and they took a calculated risk.

I have seen websites totally dissappear in webresults without any kind of spammy SEO being applied. I know you've seen that too Allan. In many cases in takes months or years to get back in. Some of the examples I've seen has been triggered by the purchase of new (completely unindexable) commerce systems, bad architecture or changes to how scripts are handled etc. Nothing that has to do with spam. Sometimes sites even drop out for no apparent reason at all - sites that haven't even changed.

What I think is important to tell clients is that they can't rely on traffic on "natural" listings at all - just like they can't rely on free media coverage in general. They may get dumped one day - even if they do not spam. Yes, if they spam it is a lot more likely they will get dumped, or even banned, but the risk of dropping out of the index is there in any case.

So again, it's not a black and white thing. Neither you, Allan, or I can guarantee that we can keep our clients in the free indexes. We can only offer them our best advice based on the experience we have in the field.

[dannysullivan]

It seems that Danny does want them to be involved.
Yeah, in some way, I think they need to be. I know that they don't mind some of the rules they publish being broken, if they feel like the user isn't being harmed. That's a dangerous thing to say, because then it makes it sound like it's anything goes. That's why they don't say it. But we also know they don't act on every spam report.

So with a voluntary reporting idea, say someone accuses you of spamming. Maybe technically you're doing something that might be argued against the public rules. The search engines checks, says yeah, but we choose not to enforce the rule in this case because we see no harm. Flexibility.

Ask Google if they need SEOs in order to provide relevant results. The answer is no.
I think the vast majority of people at Google wouldn't be so blunt, but in their gut, I'd tend to agree with you. They'd feel like even if SEO didn't exist, they'd provide relevant results. And there's no doubt that many of them would feel that if there were no SEO activity, live would be much easier and we'd have a more level playing field.

Of course, the reality is that this has never been a level playing field. There are plenty of sites that have problems getting indexed and further, ranking well for things because they make (to us) simply mistakes.

Google has to spend time helping these people. Don't forget - outside SEO are plenty of people who run their own web site and who are banging on Google's email doors asking what's going on. And that's where SEO can indeed help Google (and other search engines). They simply can't help all the people who have real, honest problems. And yes, some SEO work I would argue does help search results. No doubt, some hurts it. But the idea that there's a "clean" set of results is a myth.

Read their SEC filing and tell me where it says Google need SEOs in order to return relevant results.
It's the flip. The Google IPO filing (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3347471#worries) specifically says:
"If our efforts to combat these and other types of index spamming are unsuccessful, our reputation for delivering relevant information could be diminished. This could result in a decline in user traffic, which would damage our business."
They do have a stake in working with SEOs, because if they don't, it goes right to their bottom line. And that bottom line revolves around having good, editorial content to support the ads they also show.

Why can't we - as a body of professional SEOs - create a web-based tool that enables clients to input the domain name of their site and all sites that point at that site, the most important three keywords/phrases and it will warn them if there are any signficantly unprofessional practices going on - or suspected?
OK, let's break that part off -- practical comments on this, please pick them up in this thread: Should There Be Spam-Checking Tool? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=594)

General debate or new ideas, carry in this one!

[Kal]

...most professional industries do have a code of ethics, so why shouldn't our industry have that?For me, that sums up the entire argument nicely. Why the heck shouldn't we be able to implement a Code of Practise or set of Industry Standards? As Jill said, following them would be optional but it would give consumers a starting point for researching SEM firms.

If SEO and SEM firms would simply follow the AMA Full Code of Ethics (http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content1175.php), most of the reputation problems would eventually fade away... but it would be one heck of a start if we could get a similar code of ethics established at either http://www.sempo.com or http://www.seopros.org
Agreed. I see it like the Registered Builder's Association membership (or Registered Master Builder's Association if you're from Australia or NZ). People know if they choose a registered builder that they have less chance of having a poorly constructed dwelling, they know they have some recompense if the builder they choose doesn't follow the standards they agreed to as a member of the Association and so on. It's a safety net and people can choose to use an RBA or not. Why not have a similar Association and set of standards for SEM? Heck even the PR industry has a Code of Ethics and slated standards.

Why not ask search engine representatives, searchers, SEOs and SEMs to work together to develop industry standards? Why can't SEMPO enforce a Code of Conduct (or) why can't SEO Pros become the accepted industry body? Why can't there be a "standards" logo that compliant SEOs and SEMs can use on their sites?

After all, SEM is just another industry. Sure it will take time. Sure it will be difficult to come up with standards agreed to by all. But the pay off is a reputation rescue. The main hurdle I see is motivation :(

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Why not ask search engine representatives, searchers, SEOs and SEMs to work together to develop industry standards? Why can't SEMPO enforce a Code of Conduct (or) why can't SEO Pros become the accepted industry body? Why can't there be a "standards" logo that compliant SEOs and SEMs can use on their sites?

There is nothing that prevent you or any other person or organisation from doing that. But my questions are A) Will there be enough SEOs that will follow those rules and B) Will it have a possitive impact on the reputation of our business

If only a very small minority of active SEOs follow a set standard I am just not sure it will have any real impact on our trade. In fact, as I said, I think it may even hurt our trade if we keep exhibiting our weaknesses and focusing on differences as being bad, spam, un-ethical or whatever wording people chose.

[dannysullivan]

OK, thread splitting time. Why not have a code of conduct? To talk about specifics of what might be involved, please pick that up over here: An SEM Code Of Conduct? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=596)

If anyone wants to volunteer to pick up some of the suggestions of what that code might entail from previous posts, a summary would be appreciated!

[Golgotha]

this reminds me of an article I wrote back in November (http://www.search-this.com/search_engine_optimization/seo_cant_we_get_along1.aspx).


I believe there are 2 things the would / could benefit the SEM community.
1. An aptitude test / certification - Of course this will only have value if there is industry recognition and that means the search engines themselves would have to get on board.
2. The Us vs Them mentality has to die. The search engines have to learn to embrace the people that optimize for them. After all, a 'good' SEM is helping to improve their results.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

After all, a 'good' SEM is helping to improve their results.


That is, i belive, very much still a subject open for discussion. Many do not agree with that statement - including some of the engine representatives.

[Golgotha]

yes, that is so...that's why the word 'good' is in quotes.

If there is a company the sells toasters and a SEM company or individual gets them top listings for the keyword 'toaster' then that should be looked at as a win win case. A company selling toasters came up for a search on toasters, I think that is a good result.

[Brad]

this reminds me of an article I wrote back in November (http://www.search-this.com/search_engine_optimization/seo_cant_we_get_along1.aspx).


I believe there are 2 things the would / could benefit the SEM community.
1. An aptitude test / certification - Of course this will only have value if there is industry recognition and that means the search engines themselves would have to get on board.
2. The Us vs Them mentality has to die. The search engines have to learn to embrace the people that optimize for them. After all, a 'good' SEM is helping to improve their results.

Sorry, but an aptitude test is meaningless unless you have regulatory enforcement teeth to back it up. Anyone can learn SEO.

'good' SEM is also competing against their PPC sales and thus their bottom line. Sure the earch engines might pretend to be friendly to tame SEO's but I suspect that in reality their allegience lies with their own bottom line. Not that I blame them.


If there is a company the sells toasters and a SEM company or individual gets them top listings for the keyword 'toaster' then that should be looked at as a win win case. A company selling toasters came up for a search on toasters, I think that is a good result.

What makes you think, I the searcher want a shopping site? Perhaps I would prefer all informational sites about toasters. And again doing that as an SEO competes against the pure shopping searches like Froogle.

I don't think you will ever get the SE's truely on board with such a group.

What SEo really needs is a Jack Valenti type slick spin monger to counter the negative media spin put out by the SE's. :D

[Jill Whalen]

If there is a company the sells toasters and a SEM company or individual gets them top listings for the keyword 'toaster' then that should be looked at as a win win case. A company selling toasters came up for a search on toasters, I think that is a good result.

Yes, you think it is, but the search engines may not agree with you, depending on what methods you used to get it there.

Unless SEOs agree to not use methods that the search engines disapprove of, then SEOs are rightly looked at as scoundrels by the search engines and the rest of the world.

[NFFC]

>Unless SEOs agree to not use methods that the search engines disapprove of, then SEOs are rightly looked at as scoundrels by the search engines and the rest of the world.

As ashamed as I am to admit it I have to agree with you, only last week I had a call from "the rest of the world", they were extremely upset to say the least.

Seriously, and without trying to make this in anyway personal, taking that dumber than dumb "rest of the world" comment and coupling it with Mr Perkins pulled out his derriere "fact" that "I would guess that less than 1% of SEOs in the world actually perform SEO in a way that search engines would find acceptable" I begin to despair. I don't see any future for this industry as an industry, just a gradual but unstoppable retreat towards the lone SEO gunslinger for hire. When what are supposedly the industries leading lights, all be it in their not so humble opinions, spout such drivel I can understand why Joe SEO prefers the back bedroom to the SE's lobby.

Imho before we can pursue the wild, maybe unobtainable dream, of a true partnership between SEO's and SE's we need, and I repeat, to attack, expose and stamp out hypocrisy whenever we see it. Looking at the current landscape I'm afraid that means throwing some of our industry "leaders" overboard. Their narrow minded, short term, self serving and frankly hypocritical views have no place in the modern www.

"One with scanty knowledge tends to think a little learning a lot and be haughty. It is just as a puny frog, not having seen the ocean, thinks a little well-water a lot."

[Jeremy_Goodrich]

Late in the thread...and, having not read it all ;) I'll add this to the 'stew' of opinion.

As Danny mentioned (here or in another thread) PR (public relations) folks don't have a standards organization, etc.

From what I've seen, 100% of the efforts to lead the 'industry' are self serving. Some people see it as a way to 'get their word out' and others -> a path to their own profit.

*If* and that's a big IF - I, as an SEO professional, make good money, have tons of contacts, no lack of business referrals, and plenty to do to make my little corner of the web work better ;) - then why would I help some 'organization' give other folks that can't market themselves out of a paper bag assistance in competing with me for the same client base?

People are self serving in a capitalistic society, and that's the bottom line. If an org doesn't directly, tangibly help me improve mine, I'm not in it.

Similarly, improving the reputation for blokes that can't market themselves quite frankly isn't my job, or anyone else's but those that need the help.

Perhaps these SEOs that see a 'lack' in our industry, should find themselves some marketing folks to help their cause? :)

[DanThies]

Jeremy,

I'm motivated to do something about this for a few reasons.

1. The health of the industry. Whether companies avoid SEO/SEM entirely because of reputation, or merely delay their decision, the pie gets smaller because of unethical conduct.

2. Economic productivity. What hurts the quality of search results also hurts us all. People spend a tremendous amount of time on search engines, and the time they spend wading through irrelevant results is lost time.

3. Because I care about all the little webpreneurs trying to get their business going, who get taken in by shysters pawning themselves off as SEO experts. Read the TP telemarketing scripts for examples.

4. Because it feels right. If everything you do has to have a cash payoff, I feel sorry for you. Not everyone is corrupt and self-serving in everything they do.

[yellowwing]

The FCC regulates the US spectrum of the Internet business. However, the Internet is a Global medium of communication. They have no mandate or jurisdiction over offshore SEO providers.

Our SEO industry leaders are only heard by people with some knowledge and the desire to research what we are about.

I think we need a columnist of a major newspaper like the NY Times to do an in depth report on 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' of out cottage industry.

Part of the problem is that we are a technology industry engaging in marketing. Look at the navigation layout of the NY Times. Technology and Business/Media & Advertising are very separate topics. We need an editor that would make a cross industry assignment.

I still believe that when that particular SEO company was purchased for $94 million, and then fell flat on its face, we lost 10 years of being recognized as a viable mainstream industry. Nike.com is not even in the Google top 100 for the lucrative 'basketball shoes' search engine market, (22,892 searches in June alone, according to Overture).

No one in the billion dollar Nike marketing team will touch us with a ten foot pole.

So you that are in the SEO spotlight, start badgering the marketing columnist!

[Daria_Goetsch]

Great post Dan, I agree.

The small business people are getting the bad end of the stick from both those who scam them and the costs to show up in the SERPS. No wonder they are wary of purchasing SEO/SEM services.

[Jeremy_Goodrich]

>>the pie gets smaller because of unethical conduct.

Nope, it doesn't.

Just becuase one punter ain't gunning for the top 10 spots, does NOT mean that they are suddenly easier to acquire ;)

If you're concerned about the little guy - great! - saying that, here, is preaching to the choir...most (if not all?) of the blokes posting are professionals, who know what they're doing or should.

Again, IF the pie is 'shrinking' for you, get more clients, or get a day job, from my perspective, the industry outlook has never been brighter for SEO.

Some years ago, I worked in a non profit, helping people find work. There were a number of regulars, who didn't want to help themselves, and constantly - despite opportunity! - wanted a hand out.

The larger number got work, went out, got money, and I never saw them again...unless something happened, then I'd see them briefly, help them find an opportunity, and they'd be off.

In life / business, etc - sure you can try to 'help' but...some people dont' want to be taught to fish, they just want to be given a fish.

And from my perspective...well, the industry is so full of fish, that it's never been easier to catch one. In any competitive space, it's not a matter of getting a "good" SEO - it's finding one that's better than those SEO folks that are already working the space.

Or do you really think that a new electronics retailer is going to be able to crack the top 10 for money terms out the gate with a "good" SEO? Nope, they a great one.

[DanThies]

Jeremy,

Maybe I need to explain this differently. The "pie" I'm talking about is the amount of marketing dollars that will be spent on SEO/SEM, and yes, unethical practices do indeed shrink that pie.

Every time a Traffic Power manages to make news, every time a client publicly complains about an unethical SEO who got their site penalized, people take notice. They take notice, and they either decide not to do SEO/SEM at all, or they delay the decision, or they dedicate less resources to it because it's "risky."

Do you really want your profession to be considered "risky" by the world at large?

I am not terribly worried about some half-wit stuffing keywords into image ALT properties, hidden layers, or whatever. I'll let the search engines worry about how to stop that, which they do pretty well. It's not as if that kind of garbage is going to outrank anything I'm working on.

[projectphp]

After all that, I still don't get what the bad reputation stems from, or even who holds this supossed impression.

Seth Godin, obviously. And Google, well, that's a given really. But what about the people taht really matter? The potential clients. AFAIK, neither Google nor Mr Godin has ever purchased SEM or SEO services from a third party vendor (I do know LookSmart and Overture did AdWords). Sure, their opinion matters, but not nearly as much as the people likely to buy SEM.

There is a lot of general statements flying around, but nothing specific. Perhaps a good survey for SEMPO to run would be a market perception survey, especially for set target audiences, of their view of SEM, PPC based SEM, and SEO.

Perhaps with a clearer, factual understanding of where the bad perception eminates, and what specific areas need addressing, a clearer path to fixing it will be discovered.

[searchengineblog.com]

They do have a stake in working with SEOs, because if they don't, it goes right to their bottom line. And that bottom line revolves around having good, editorial content to support the ads they also show

I'm not certain SEOs necessarily provide good editorial content by virtue of their existence. Publishers do, and sometimes SEOs bring that content to the surface where it otherwise would have remained buried. So, SEOs certainly provide some value, but with that value comes risk. Does the risk outweigh the value?

However, I agree that a search engine hoping that webmasters forget about where they rank won't make it so. The search engines need to leave enough on the table.

My feeling is that Google should move to validate SEM, of which SEO is a part. Third-party SEM is a cost effective channel to market and adds value in the same way that mortgage brokers add value to a lenders bottom line.


Why?

-The clients I talk with still need to be convinced of the merits of search marketing - takes time, effort and proximity.
- I hear frequent war stories about how clients got burned when they signed up for PPC, failed miserably (even with campaigns managed inhouse by the search engines) and they've sworn never to touch search marketing again. This situation is easily solved by a search marketer who knows what they are doing. Everyone wins.
-There are numerous provider channels to (search) market and clients are very confused by the options. The SEM should be courted, not scorned.

[Robert_Charlton]

...it's meant to help potential SEM clients figure out whether a particular firm has done anything wrong with a particular search engine.

First, I agree that there are some very shoddy operators in the business. To take it beyond the very obvious dirty tricks, though, like hidden text and artificial linking networks and gibberish cloaked doorways, what do we mean by "wrong?" We all know it when we see it... but very often "clean" sites are victims of collateral damage that happens when Google goes after the dirty ones.

Think back to the Florida update, when clean sites with good editorial content that had ranked well for years, along with the dirty sites, were falling off the edge of the planet... and one of the questions that followed was whether there was an over-optimization penalty.

And, was this over-optimization spam? Was there something wrong with having similar titles and headings and text on the page? For a while, it seemed like mentioning the target phrase on the page was spam. If Google was nuking these sites, how could anyone say that their optimizers were clean?


It does need to come up with some ways to reassure would-be clients, lest everyone be dismissed as a scam artist.

During Florida, Google did nothing to clarify the situation. They undoubtedly felt it was useful to keep spammers in the dark... to keep SEO's and their clients off balance... and to have clients mistrust the whole SEO profession.

I can't imagine that Google would or could have tipped its hand and said what the optimizers of these zapped sites had or hadn't done. I don't know how an engine or a watch-dog organization could react in a timely fashion to the volume of questions that something like Florida raised. And in these grey areas, very often, I suspect that short of the algo on a silver platter, there isn't actually a set of simple guidelines to be followed, or a way of reassuring clients at all.

[Alan Perkins]

Allan, those risks exsist no matter if you engage in one or another type of SEO or in fact for most decissions you make for your company and the marketing you engage in.No, the risks I posted exist mainly if you engage in aggressive SEO. There are other risks inherent in all forms of SEO.

I have seen websites totally dissappear in webresults without any kind of spammy SEO being applied. I know you've seen that too Allan. In many cases in takes months or years to get back in. Some of the examples I've seen has been triggered by the purchase of new (completely unindexable) commerce systems, bad architecture or changes to how scripts are handled etc. Nothing that has to do with spam. Sometimes sites even drop out for no apparent reason at all - sites that haven't even changed.Yes, I agree with all of this.

What I think is important to tell clients is that they can't rely on traffic on "natural" listings at all - just like they can't rely on free media coverage in general. They may get dumped one day - even if they do not spam. Yes, if they spam it is a lot more likely they will get dumped, or even banned, but the risk of dropping out of the index is there in any case.Agreed 100%.

Neither you, Allan, or I can guarantee that we can keep our clients in the free indexes. We can only offer them our best advice based on the experience we have in the field.Agreed again. However, the risk of dropping out of the free indexes for doing nothing wrong is different to the risk of being penalised, banned, suffering reputational damage and legal action for doing something wrong.

If Google was nuking these sites, how could anyone say that their optimizers were clean?IMO optimizers are clean if they don't deceive their clients, search engines or searchers. All clients should be warned about the risks of relying on traffic from organic listings. It would be deceptive to suggest that organic listings are a free ride that last forever, no matter what SEO techniques you use.

[Kal]

A) Will there be enough SEOs that will follow those rules and B) Will it have a possitive impact on the reputation of our business. If only a very small minority of active SEOs follow a set standard . The point is NOT how many SEOs will follow the set standard. The point is that the industry starts to regulate itself and the public perception of the industry improves. The SEOs who follow the standard are able to distance themselves from those who don't (and vice versa). The public will know that there is an industry association that has worked to set standards. The SEOs/SEMs who choose to follow these standards can display a compliancy logo. The association who set the standards can monitor membership based on continued compliancy and lack of consumer complaints. The consumer can complain to the association if standards are breached. The association can take action - eg. reject membership in these cases. And best of all, the consumer has a clear choice - to work with an SEO that chooses to follow set standards or one that doesn't - with a clearer understanding of the risks/benefits that both options entail.

[seobook]

And best of all, the consumer has a clear choice - to work with an SEO that chooses to follow set standards or one that doesn't - with a clearer understanding of the risks/benefits that both options entail.

it is not a clear choice though. standards are about minimal compliance. standards are not about excellent work. most SEOs are not necissarily awesome at SEO, and even those who are may not have a consistant strong work ethic on all clients websites.

to me it is a risk no matter what you do. just because someone has a logo does not mean that they will do a good job.

i would rather hire an SEO that outright got me kicked out of the search engines right away
vice
paying an SEO for 6 to 12 months and see virtually no returns, despite the fact that they did "nothing wrong."

SEO is not about doing everything per guidelines. SEO is about common sense and putting forth a decent amount of effort (or creating good ideas).

no logo is going to certify you as a hard worker.

[MakeMeTop]

A couple of years ago I was very concerned about how to differentiate what I did from other alleged SEO/SEM companies and came up with a totally different business model to 99.9% of SEO companies.

Frankly, although I wouldn't particularly like being labelled as part of the SEO "scam the client" fraternity, I couldn't give a nuts about being labelled a spammer - as long as it goes along with the rider that I produce well-thought out, beautifully copy-written spam.

Spam is purely in the eye of the beholder and, IMO, is a complete red-herring as I consider all search engine result manipulation to be spamming according to most search engine guidelines.

Scams are a whole different ball of wax and there, I agree, that it would be good to have a code of conduct towards the way we, as a profession, treat our customers.

Signing up to some charter which says to search engines "I promise not to spam you - honest, Guv!" is IMO completely worthless and hypocritical if you then go out tweaking page content "ethically" to rank higher, whilst turning in a few pages that (in your opinion) have broken the "rules" purely to get another few ranking boosts!

Frankly, I would like all search engines to charge me for including my content a la Trusted Feeds or PFI - they inspect my work, charge me and put me in the results (or not if they feel that I have not passed their quality control).

Until/If/When this happens and it is possible for SEM/SEOs to have a commercial realtionship with engines we are going to continue to be playing cat and mouse with their algo of the month.

What we should be doing, IMO, is doing something to protect potential clients from being scammed and perhaps having a watchdog where SEO/SEM clients can post complaints and the SEO/SEM can post a defence with an abitration committee giving an opinion which could be an option. Certainly, I'd contribute to that - but then I've not seen any complaints about my services - yet! So I would say that wouldn't I!

[rustybrick]

Would a volunteer organization the surveys and watches the SEM firms for quality guidelines not work at all?

I am thinking we build something called the SEO Angels, where volunteers are posting information on a need to basis about guidelines, standards and companies that have crossed the line of those guidelines.

Of course the guidelines will be hard to agree on, but since the name is SEO Angels, I guess the guidelines should be extremely high on the ethics side.

I can set a site up for this in a matter of an hour. Just need someone respected to chair this organization and then a committee to approve volunteers and create guidelines.

Thoughts?

[Brad]

Would a volunteer organization the surveys and watches the SEM firms for quality guidelines not work at all?

No. I'm no lawyer but I think you are wide open to lawsuits.

I am thinking we build something called the SEO Angels, where volunteers are posting information on a need to basis about guidelines, standards and companies that have crossed the line of those guidelines.

Again, lawsuits. The first time your organization makes a mistake about an SEO you will be buried in court. Probably with personal liabilty too.

Is SEO Angels going to hold the search engines to a code of ethics and report on their violations?

>>ethics

Define what you mean: 'ethics' as in ethical SEO or as in thou shalt not rip off the client?

[rustybrick]

One thing I will not do is define ethics to anyone. I won't set myself up like that.

I am sure there are legal ways to do this. There are many volunteer organizations that police their little towns. Why not the same here?

[Brad]

Yeah but rustybrick you suspect the guidlines of said Org will be 'high on the ethics side' but you won't define ethics? :confused:

If you are going to have guidelines then somebody will have to define the terms.

>>police their towns.

Big difference between going after politicians and public officials on the public payroll and private individuals and private firms.

Also, who shall guard the guardians? Such a group would only have credibility if it was completely run by a disinterested third party and not a group of SEO's that have a commercial interest or SE's with a commercial interest.

And again I say, lets hold SE's to the same standards that their media spin whats to hold SEO's too. Turnabout is fair play.

[rcjordan]

>The first time your organization makes a mistake about an SEO you will be buried in court. Probably with personal liabilty too.

Absolutely (US-based, anyway).

[NFFC]

>Absolutely (US-based, anyway).

UK based they tend to just find out where you live ;)

[rustybrick]

Ok forget it then. :)

Just an idea.

[searchengineblog.com]

Signing up to some charter which says to search engines "I promise not to spam you - honest, Guv!" is IMO completely worthless and hypocritical if you then go out tweaking page content "ethically" to rank higher, whilst turning in a few pages that (in your opinion) have broken the "rules" purely to get another few ranking boosts!

Agreed. Would the SEO who has ever added keyword terms to copy for the purpose of ranking higher for that keyword term, please raise your hand.

According to the Heavenly-White-And-Pure Association, you're a spammer. Close the door on the way out.

[Robert_Charlton]

If Google was nuking these sites, how could anyone say that their optimizers were clean?

IMO optimizers are clean if they don't deceive their clients, search engines or searchers.

The question is about the image of SEO as a profession. How do clients know which optimizers are clean if the search engines keep their algos private? How do SEOs know if they themselves are clean, particular those who are less skillful? And how do clients know which SEOs know?

My point of using Florida as an example was that when a lot of sites started disappearing, even classic SEO techniques like title, headings, and anchor text started coming under a cloud, and Google wanted to keep it that way.

Right now there's a lot of buzz about related sites dropping. These are sites that were put up for a variety of reasons, many of which were not about artificial networks and inbound links or about hogging the serps. How does a client evaluate whether the people who put these up were operating ethically? Some very good people are still trying to guess where this line is.

And any kind of optimizer, regardless of techniques used, could tell his clients that their rankings might disappear at any time. This doesn't really assure clients that these SEOs are ethical.

How do you certify that no one is cheating in a highly competitive game where no one shows his cards, the unpublished rules are changing all the time, many players who think they know the rules really don't have a clue, those who do have a clue feel compelled to play the best they can, and the referee won't talk to anyone?

[Alan Perkins]

How do you certify that no one is cheating in a highly competitive game where no one shows his cards, the unpublished rules are changing all the time, many players who think they know the rules really don't have a clue, those who do have a clue feel compelled to play the best they can, and the referee won't talk to anyone?
LOL, very well put! I don't know the answer. I don't even know that certification is required. The topic of the thread is "Improving the reputation of the SEM Industry". It's debatable whether certification would do that, at this stage at least.

[DanThies]

At SEOPros, the approach we are working from is that certifying knowledge has some value. The worst "SEOs" aren't unethical, they're just incompetent. Even some very good SEOs may not see the alternatives to techniques like cloaking, even when they are available.

For example... One of the speakers at SES in New York presented a case for cloaking, involving an e-commerce site. The "category" pages had long lists of products, and links allowing visitors to sort by color, price, manufacturer etc. In order to avoid delivering duplicate content, they were cloaking these pages, so that they didn't deliver all the "sort by..." links to spiders.

Just as effective would be to have those sort links go through a script located in another directory. The script would push the browser right back to the category page with the appropriate variables in the URL to sort the page content. All they'd have to do is add the script directory into their robots.txt file, and search engines wouldn't follow the links, wouldn't see the duplicate content, etc.

The guy making this presentation isn't evil (as far as I know), he's not dumb, he's probably just gotten used to cloaking and never looked for a different solution.

[NFFC]

>One of the speakers at SES in New York presented a case for cloaking,

It may just be me but their solution sounds simpler, more elegant, more reliable and if I'm being frank, more honest than yours.

Just me?

[DanThies]

It may just be me but their solution sounds simpler, more elegant, more reliable and if I'm being frank, more honest than yours.

Just me?
I sincerely hope it's just you, or you and few others...

Cloaking is simpler? Cloaking is a far more complex enterprise than a simple redirect script.

Cloaking is more reliable? Why? Either way you're running a script. With my solution, a much simpler script.

Cloaking is more honest? Why? When you cloak, you're showing different content to the search engines than to visitors. How is that more honest? It's far more honest to deny spiders access to the duplicate content via robots.txt.

Cloaking is more effective? No, and when someone searches for "curtain rods sort by color," you might feel a little silly about having removed that from the page. :D

I would also add that this kind of cloaking, no matter how good the intentions, exposes the client to unnecessary risk.

[NFFC]

>Cloaking is a far more complex enterprise

What could be simpler than if and else statements?

>than a simple redirect script.

Yuk, you said the redirect word.

>Cloaking is more reliable?

See redirect etc, not all browsers work the same way.

>Cloaking is more honest?

You are "hiding" things, they are not showing them.

>Cloaking is more effective?

I didn't say that and you forgot to address the elegance issue too.

[DanThies]

Guess we'll have to disagree on this one. :)

I'd like to know which browser will fail to honor a 302 redirect, but does have the ability to accept cookies and everything else it takes to use an e-commerce site.

[fathom]

Interest enough "spam":

1. to the Search Engine: anything that manipulates its vulnerabilities

2. to the searcher: seeking one thing and finding something else e.g. searching for an SE optimizer (as Google says) and finding Google guidelines. Clearly Google can't serive their needs though.

3. to an SEO client: everything above them

4. to the client's competitor: another SEO client; the scum that displaced them last month

5. to the SEO: another SEO working in the same segment that got them displaced

6. to the news media - anything that creates a good headline

Spam is defined equally different from the vantagepoint of the observer.

Further still the do-it-yourselfer with a hobby is often "more blantant with spam" simply because they mimic what they see and don't know what spam is... the definition changes depending on who is at the top, who isn't, and which party is scruntizing results.

[NFFC]

>I'd like to know which browser will fail to honor a 302 redirect

My Opera set-up for one, I fail to see how that makes the browser without honour though!

>but does have the ability to accept cookies and everything else it takes to use an e-commerce site.

LOL, trust me the acceptance or not of cookies needn't have any bearing on the operation of an e-commerce site.

If you find this http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3 simpler to understand than "if useragent = seofyourchoice then blah blah else blah blah" you are a better man than me.

[fathom]

SEO is not about doing everything per guidelines. SEO is about common sense and putting forth a decent amount of effort (or creating good ideas).

no logo is going to certify you as a hard worker.

That's it right there.

A client hire you because they believe you "are going to make them money"... not because you won't.

Ultimately we must convey to the client all the advantages and disadvantage, (the risks) and allow them to make informed business decisions. It is their business and livelihood they "must be an active informed participant".

That's what corrects the vision - from the black eye.

[DanThies]

>I'd like to know which browser will fail to honor a 302 redirect

My Opera set-up for one, I fail to see how that makes the browser without honour though!

If you find this http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3 simpler to understand than "if useragent = seofyourchoice then blah blah else blah blah" you are a better man than me.
Just for laughs, I downloaded and installed Opera a couple minutes ago. It seems to follow redirects just fine, just like every other browser I know of.

For simplicity, I'll give you a one line PHP script that will implement the necessary redirect. Let's assume that category.php is your category page, and that category.php?category=1234&sort=color will cause it to sort category 1234 by color. You put a "sort by color" link that points to /scripts/sortcategory.php?cat=1234&sort=color.

Here's the PHP script for sortcategory.php:
<?php
header('Location: http://www.example.com/category.php?category=$cat&sort=$sort')
?>

That wasn't so hard, was it?

[andrewgoodman]

There are quite a few angles to this one.

Above all though, I concur that some kind of certification is a bad idea. A bit too Lord-of-the-Flies'ish to me. I don't think a lot of us want to wake up one day, rub the sleep from our eyes, and find ourselves the odd man out around the campfire because the "accreditation body" has been taken over by a coalition of competitors.

In my former academic days I learned a lot about things like regulatory agencies and their history. The pattern of "agency capture" -- agencies being taken over by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating -- seems relevant here. How does something like this get started? The birth of a regulatory regime might install certain parties as de facto power brokers unless it is very well designed with institutional checks and balances.

Make no mistake, there is already informal governance within search marketing. Arguably the Search Engine Watch conferences (physical contact, accreditation through consistent participation) are a part of it.

I'm not sure I'd want it to go much farther than that. A consistent practice of standing up and being counted -- as we see from people like eg. Jill, aaron wall, and many of the folks posting on the forum -- means a lot in business. If you're willing to show your picture, use your real name, and even organize a seminar or attend a show and shake a few hands, you're starting to be more accountable than someone hiding out under a fake name in a boiler room.

To put an entirely different spin on it, though, we probably need to chill out.

What do you think the reaction is / would have been to any of the following?

"I'm a stockbroker" in late 2000

"I'm into leveraged buyouts" in 1992

"I'm an accountant"

"I'm a CEO"

"I'm a pro athlete"

"I'm a teacher" or "I'm a cop" (some will love you, others hate you)

"I'm the president"

"I was the president"

If the worry is that the press make certain classes of people look guilty, well, that's journalism. Consequently.....

"I'm a journalist" is another statement that will get you in hot water.

Sure, there are scummy SEO's, but compared to those actually committing white-collar *felonies*, they are actually earning a living without breaking any laws.

And the fact that they exist does not have to rub off on you. A bigger problem might be how do you stand out from the crowd or create prestige for your operation. The thing that bugs me is when people pigeonhole this as "being into computers."


And for now, I'll leave out the whole issue of why Seth Godin said I'm good while critiquing the SEO industry. It's really quite simple: I wrote to him several years ago asking for his advice, and followed it. I also sent him a case study of my friend Steve Penfold, the Professor of Donuts, which made it into Godin's 99 Cows e-book. For these and other undisclosed reasons, Godin has decided I'm smart. And he has now decided that those who were overly defensive about his critique of the SEM industry are not smart, because they're unwilling to see the other side of the story. If we were a mature industry we would not have such touchy reactions.

[NFFC]

At the risk of getting further off-topic

>downloaded and installed Opera

File > Preferences > Security untick enable automatic redirection. Try it, you will see a whole new [and more secure] www.

So your solution doesn't work for me [the user] but works for the search engine. The dirty evil unethical cloaker's solution works great for me and the SE. That leaves me somewhat confused as to your motivation.

[Alan Perkins]

This particular problem can be handled without using cloaking or redirects. robots.txt or the robots meta tag is all you need.

I've never yet run into a problem that needed what I consider to be cloaking (and what Danny calls "unapproved cloaking") to resolve it. Plenty of situations might call for some kind of content delivery solution which carries the risk of being wrongly identified as cloaking. Often these situations arise when a system has already been implemented and it's too difficult or expensive to undo the mistakes that have already been made.

I think the point is that choosing methods that carry risk, when you have the choice of other methods that will work just as well without the risk, is not doing the best for the client. The industry could improve its reputation by not taking un-necessary risks.

[bwelford]

Fathom, I thought your definitions of "spam" were most apt. That got me thinking of what is the most useful definition of "spam" in the context of what we are discussing.

Spam in general is far too much of something we don't want. The only definition that counts in this discussion is what the Search Engines would define as Spam. It presumably is not something that can easily be caught by a Search Engine algorithm and down-weighted so that it is without effect. For example, Yahoo! still seems to be using the Description metatag so some of us still include one. Google doesn't use it in the search algorithm. That doesn't make the use of the Description metatag a spammy technique. Whether or not SEO's suggest the use of elements that have little effect is not a question of Spam but rather of their competence.

No, in this discussion, we are presumably talking about techniques where it is difficult for the Search Engine to set up automatic down-weighting processes to make the techniques without effect. The only solution for the Search Engines is a human process of de-indexation of the offending web pages. This human process must be ever alert to the latest smart manoeuvres to gain high rankings using techniques that are against the Guidelines. So it will change constantly and presumably need to get more sophisticated as time goes on. I would suggest that the only definition of Spam that is useful is the set of techniques that caused this human process of de-indexation to de-index the offending web pages.

If this is the only definition of Spam that is worthwhile, I think the possible solutions to "clean up" the industry become much simpler.

[DanThies]

This particular problem can be handled without using cloaking or redirects. robots.txt or the robots meta tag is all you need.
Yes it can, and all of these solutions are simpler than trying to keep an eye on every IP address that "might" be from a search engine. ;)

[Bernard]

In my former academic days I learned a lot about things like regulatory agencies and their history. The pattern of "agency capture" -- agencies being taken over by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating -- seems relevant here.

I'm not sure what sort of body you are envisioning, but there are plenty of non-profit professional organizations in other industries with open and transparent processes that are not subject to the "agency capture" you mention.

Make no mistake, there is already informal governance within search marketing. Arguably the Search Engine Watch conferences (physical contact, accreditation through consistent participation) are a part of it.

Are you claiming that SES should be looked at for defining the best of the industry? What governence exists there? Danny picks the speakers and he has already mentioned that he does not wish to "set examples" with this responsibility. I should point out that your assertion that "consistent participation = accredation" supports some criticisms that have been raised about the event contributing to the problem.

Sure, there are scummy SEO's, but compared to those actually committing white-collar *felonies*, they are actually earning a living without breaking any laws.

Just because cases of prosecution have not been widely publicized does not mean that fraud is not being committed. Traffic-Power may yet become the first such public example.

However, this is beside the point. The industry still gets a black eye when business owners feel they are getting a raw deal (whether or not an SEO/SEM attempted to explain risks). Putting out a product/service that produces unhappy customers will not help an industry's reputation.

[cjtripnewton]

"LOL, trust me the acceptance or not of cookies needn't have any bearing on the operation of an e-commerce site."

One thing that has always bothered me about online forums in general is the prolific use of "LOL" and variations by people who aren't laughing at anything funny, but rather are laughing at what they perceive as the ignorance or even outright stupidity of others.

Just my 2 cents, but LOL isn't nice. It's ubiquitous at this point, but it isn't nice.

Not to get personal, but when I see LOL in a context like this, I see it as an insult, except in the rare case in which it follows a joke.

[DanThies]

LOL... it's so ubiquitous that it's hard to take it seriously, even if it's meant as an insult.

Maybe someone will laugh at this, or failing that, my ignorance:
Deceiving a search engine is little different than someone uploading a doctored photo to Match.com, so that prospective mating partners don't see that they wear an eyepatch, have lost all their teeth, and have a large tattoo of the words "poor impulse control" on their forehead.

[Mel]

Interesting and timely discussion. While I have no answers to the problem I do have some comments.

The idea of requiring that a test be passed in order to qualify for membership is likely to backfire, as some of the worst scammers are very knowledgable and some of the purest white hat SEOs are not.

The introduction of that word "spam" into the discussion is not at all productive IMO, since there are many different opinions, definitions, and emotions involved.

A better approach from my point of view would be to look to stop the scammers. Scammers can be defined more easily and are really the ones who give the industry the blackest eyes. A definition of a scammer could be anyone who does not provide services worth the fees he charges, but I am sure there could be some spirited discussion about that too.

In thinking about the root of the problem it seems to me that a necessary first step would be education of consumers regarding SEM. Once SEM is brought out of the closet and into the living room and discussed in polite society in a knowledgable manner, the first part of the battle is won.

[Alan Perkins]

From Danny's very first post...It's not been a good couple of weeks for the reputation of the SEM industry. Some examples:


Seth Godin posts (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2004/07/the_problem_wit.html) recently that "I didn't think that most SEO was worth the money"
Anil Dash also wrote (http://www.dashes.com/anil/2004/06/04/nigritude_ultra) recently, "I've always had a pretty low opinion of the Search Engine Optimization industry. Though there are of course legitimate experts in the field, it seems chock full of people who are barely above spammers, and they taint the image of the whole group."
The allegations (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=431) against Traffic Power no doubt will make many wary of whether they should trust an SEM firm.

Both spamming and scamming affect the reputation of the industry.

[Webmaster T]

There are quite a few angles to this one.

Above all though, I concur that some kind of certification is a bad idea. A bit too Lord-of-the-Flies'ish to me. I don't think a lot of us want to wake up one day, rub the sleep from our eyes, and find ourselves the odd man out around the campfire because the "accreditation body" has been taken over by a coalition of competitors.That assumes that the "accrediatation body" is made up of people selling SEO services. They could be people who think SEO is an actual skill and a "certifiable" trade. They could be teachers and speakers who think the bar needs to be raised and that certification enables consumers to make decisions in the same way they choose a doctor or CPA. Consumers come in knowing the firm/consultant has the knowledge to identify the problems and provide solutions and guidance. SEO Implementation isn't certfiable, the knowledge needed to implement techniques/solutions and identify indexing problems are.

IMO, this industries reputation is directly affected by the professionals in it perception of other SEO professionals. Andrew's assumptions are an example. A person of high industry visibility shooting "certification" down without any knowledge of what is being proposed, who is involved and what the goals are, assuming, that it is done for self gain and predicting a negative outcome due to unprofessional conduct. That is just adding to the reputation. It's obvious by statements like that even those in the industry don't trust the other professionals in it. Why should a consumer?

[DaveAtIFG]

This thread is titled "Improving the reputation of the SEM industry." For those in the industry, its most important to improve the industry's reputation with SEM consumers. The SEs must remain skeptical until they "know an SEO's style," and then remain vigilent to insure that style doesn't change.

Self policing will always have credibility problems, whether it's done by setting ethical standards, establishing certifications, or any other approach. "A bunch of spammers policing themselves? Give me a break!" ;)

As a start up business in 1997, the first place I looked to establish credibility was the BBB. At that time, the cost was $800 per year, well beyond the budget of a start up. But there were several online business rating services and I joined one of those for free. Not surprisingly, it no longer exists so in 2001, I paid to list a site with NetCheck.

IMHO, an independent third party service that operates like the BBB is the best way to improve the reputation of the industry. (But a listing/service needs to be inexpensive enough so that NFFC's independent's and start up companies can afford it.)

To an SEM consumer, a third party service offers a neutral and unbiased source for a history of a business's relationships, and by implication its ethical standards.

For SEM companies, it avoids most of the problems already discussed, with standards, certifications, etc.

If memory serves, NetCheck charges $125 per year, and provides a PR 4 link. I haven't explored the options for several years, there may well be a better choice than NetCheck. But it's clear to me that this type service is the way forward, just as it was in the brick and mortar world, years ago.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Another thing that will make it difficult to establish best practise guidelines is the fact that best practise is not allways the same from one country to another. Just as an example, in the US you will usually be very focused on liability issues. In Denmark (and many other European countries) we hardly ever tuch that subject in contracts because law already covers most of it. In fact, we have so many laws regulating contracts that it's most often benn enough for me with an e-mail confirmation - even working with corporate clients. So, the way a SEO/SEM company (or any company, for that sake) is expected and required to operate (within the law a ethical standards) in the US versus Denmark is very different.

Even within one country there might be very different de facto standards for how you are expected to deal with clients

[Robert_Charlton]

I think that any listing service or standards body is going to be inevitably flawed. Because there are no fixed boundaries in many algos, with no "penalty notices" sent out, I don't know how the engines could participate meaningfully, even if they would, except perhaps in the most egregious cases. Interpretations of standards would be uneven at best.

I do think some coordinated, purposeful, and ongoing response to bad press could help us.

To jump back to Florida once again, I remember looking at the time... both in the general press and in the SEM press... for a simple explanatory "neutral source" article, to forward to several clients, which did not strongly suggest that, because SEOs were basically shady operators, Google's algo needed changing. I couldn't find one.

Either we were talking to ourselves in the SEM press, with way too many complexities and nuances for our clients... or the mainstream media was sensationalizing and tarring our profession with a broad brush. Cumulatively, over time, this kind of us versus the engines reporting does not help us.

Here and there, I remember, some SEO companies came up with some fairly good articles to serve themselves, but these were neither neutral nor authoritative, nor were they widely published. No articles that I could find discussed, in the context of Florida, what SEOs did to make sites more visible, more organized, more relevant, more deserving of inbound links, etc.

This is an area where I think that SEMPO could be helpful. It would definitely be putting a spin on what we do. It's obviously not a spin that applies to all SEOs, but at least it might help change the terms of the discussion... or at least shift the center... and cumulatively might help change the image of the industry.

[DanThies]

There are different approaches to ethics and standards in different professions.

In accounting, there is a very detailed set of rules, codified as "Generally Accepted Accounting Practices" (GAAP). At least in the US, when you find a CPA, you know that they understand and adhere to GAAP. There are also exams to demonstrate knowledge. Accountants have loyalty to their clients, but only within the bounds of GAAP.

In the legal profession, at least in the US, you have a very different set of professional ethics. The primary loyalty of an attorney is to their client. There are some "rules" around the extremes, to protect the integrity of the legal system, but in practice that means that you tell your client not to tell you anything you don't want to know. To be admitted to the bar and practice law, you must pass an exam to demonstrate sufficient knowledge.

What he have in our little world is a disagreement about what form the standards should take. Some would like to see something like GAAP (GASP?), with everything that goes with it. Others see themselves more like attorneys, and expect the search engines to change practices by making "spam" ineffective.

Still others, as we have seen in this discussion, don't even believe that demonstrating knowledge is important. Some, because they don't think it will change anything by itself, that it isn't workable, etc.

Perhaps the only thing that can be accomplished right now, without the search engines participating, is to define what the "generally accepted SEO practices" should look like, in a hypothetical perfect world where search engines can actually tell the difference between spam and design. Right now, they can't tell between link farms, "text ads," and links given out of pure love.

Some of us will follow those practices because we believe it's right, but most will continue to adopt the ethics of the attorney. I doubt that we "accountants" have any arguments that will persuade the "attorneys" to see the same big picture that we see.

[Mel]

IMO the main problem is the misconception by the man on the street of more or less the entire SEM industry as a bunch of smoke and mirrors charlatans at best, and outright thieves at worst. There are certainly enough examples of either that press writers can find as examples, but remember that the main purpose of a press report is not to inform but to sell newspapers, or TV coverage or whatever, and thus the worse the examples held up as representative the better so far as the publisher is concerned.

IMO any approach to improving the reputation of the SEM industry has to have as a core element accurately informing the public of what SEM is what it can do, and what it cannot, etc.

While we may or may not need or be able to create an organization to regulate or standarize or accredit memebers the SEM industry, we certainly have within our ranks members with the information and ability to provide some decent press releases. IMO the formation of a group to collectively change the perception of the industry through publicity could be at least a first step, and if later this group can find ways to perhaps reveal suspect practices or even publish lists of good SEMs or whatever it will be even better.

[Matt B]

Well, now that we're talking about comparing SEO with accountants, BBB, PR and other industries,
I am not sure if this was addressed or not, but someone mentioned that the PR industry had little in the way of standards.

The PR industry is actually very strong when it comes to standards:
www.prsa.org/
www.iabc.com

Both of these offer accreditation, which is very difficult to earn, but for those that do, they earn accredited designations. The Public Relations Society of America offers a Universial Accreditation Board as part of the professional development coursework.
"APR is a mark of distinction for public relations professionals who demonstrate their commitment to the profession and to its ethical practice, and who are selected based on broad knowledge, strategic perspective, and sound professional judgment."

In fact, they address the question of ethics head on: http://www.prsa.org/_About/ethics/index.asp?ident=eth1

[RayGonzalez]

I would have chimed in earlier but I had a death in the family and was out of town.

This subject drives me crazy, I think it only hurts the industry.

I have been practicing SEO for over 5 years.

In the beginning it is possible that I could have been included with the so called "Bad SEO's" for using certain techniques.

Its not that I was trying to spam the search engines, I didn't have the level of experience I do today.

Some things that worked 5 years ago are no considered no no's.

The search engines are constantly changing their guidelines, so what is good technique today could be bad technique tomorrow.

So lets say that we managed to put the standards into place, then what happens when the search engines changed their guidelines.

The SEO's that are slow to conform to the guidelines would then be considered bad SEO's.

Does that also mean that we have to change the code on sites that we no longer maintain to be considered a good SEO.

What are SEO's supposed to do if they are no longer working on site, even though the site still contains code that they wrote, that is no considered a no no.

I believe that a good or quality SEO is someone with experience and a proven track record.

This whole black hat and white hat thing is a joke, even though the techniques I use are considered to be white hat.

To me it matters on the results and level of service you provide your clients.

The actually SEO is only a small part of what I do and I am sure that is true for many other so called SEO's.

I am really a marketing consultant, both online and offline.
I am an SEO
Part Site Architect
Part designer
Part programmer with knowledge HTML, ASP, .NET, PHP and Cold Fusion
Part Public Relations Expert
Media Buyer
Pay Per Click Management
Part Copywriter

I believe this is what makes us stand out, not only do I know each of these but we also have experts in each specialty, which again separates us from the rest.

I never set out to know all of the things I do, things just evolved that way.
In my opinion for an SEO campaign to be successful you need an expert in each of these fields.

Those that don't may fall short, but does that mean that they are bad SEO's?

I don't necessarily think so, they just don't have the experience or the tools that we have.

I think that any prospective client should speak to our actual clients.

Everyone of our clients that has stuck to the plan is receiving at least a 300% ROI.

Which sounds great coming from me or one of our sales staff, but when it comes from an actual client it means much more.

Our industry is based on results, therefore I believe it is up to the prospective client to do their homework before choosing an SEO or an SEO firm.

The real problem is the consumers are trying to jump on the SEO bandwagon without doing their homework.

Everyone wants to be in the top 10, but few have the financial means to make it in a competitive field.

Most consumers are looking for a cheap quick fix to SEO, they don't fully understand the amount of work that goes into true SEO as well as the associated costs, that is the biggest problem we run into.

I believe it is my job to educate potential clients and consumers, I believe that our industry should focus more on what potential clients and consumers should look for when hiring an SEO, not what technique is right or wrong.

Consumers need to take some of the responsibility in this.

Consumers should also look at the companies business model.
There are so many different business models out there that consumers should find the business model that meets their needs.

I chose to only work with a handful of clients instead of hundreds of clients, it allows us to focus more on each individual client. Of course they pay a premium fee for our services.

I also wanted to point out that everyone of our clients have tried the cheap easy quick fix only to be burned before finding us.

In every industry you have shady people and good honest hard working people.

Yes there are standards for PR, but their are still plenty of shady PR firms, even ones that have been accredited.

The one thing I would say to a consumer is, if you don’t trust the firm or person you are looking to hire, find someone else.

Would you hire a home builder, a doctor, a lawyer or any professional if you don’t trust them.

I know I won’t work with or for anyone I don’t trust.

[Webmaster T]

Isn't a reputation earned through actions? What actions earned the Industry a bad reputation? I don't think anyone could argue that Alan or Jill's methods and those with like beliefs earned the industry much of the bad reputation. So who is responsible for it?

I don't think there is anything to wonder about as far as this Industries reputation goes it was earned, change or accept the reputation you earned. Don't wonder why? We all should know why? John Q doesn't trust SEO's and that was earned for the Industry by some of those in it. IMO, it's that simple.

As long as the industry is seen as tolerating the actions of those responsible for the reputation the perception of the industry by consumers is not going to change. It's rediculous to think it can. The industry will earn a good reputation the same way it earned the bad one, through the actions of those in it. A good start may be with a change in attitude towards those responsible for the reputation.

Is accepting those responsible as peers, with a nudge and a wink, going to change the reputation? I don't see how it can. Some will say live and let live. IMO, anything that indicates to the consumer that some of the malarky isn't tolerated any longer the sooner the reputation will change. It seems many want to maintain the staus quo because they see it in their best interests to do so.

[bwelford]

Right on, Webmaster T.

(With apologies to the goat lovers here) I think someone has got to point out to the goats in the SEO world that it's run by and for sheep. So unless you behave like a sheep, you're not acceptable here.

To my mind, the best stakeholders in this industry to do the finger-pointing at the goats are the Search Engines. They know best what they regard as goat practices (I assume that's anything that goes against the Guidelines or Terms of Service). They don't need to do even a public finger-pointing. Just inform rapidly and consistently any website owner that is deemed to have used goat practices that the offending web pages have been de-indexed. The word will soon get around.

[Brad]

My experience in business and government is that you get a lot more with sugar than you do by demonizing a group of people or through name calling.

I suggest a comprehensive program to educate webmasters about SEO, and questions to ask an SEO before hiring one, what to look for in an SEO, and the risks. It should include a plain language glossary. It's goal should be to educate, but not to proselytize.

If you educate the public it is a lot harder for somebody dodgy to operate.

There also should be a pattern or model disclosure form for SEO's to use with their clients.

Both should be available for download and should be released to either the public domain or under creative commons license so they can be reproduced and used without fear of copyright violation.

All of this should be done in a non-proprietary manner and should not become a promotional tool for any one firm or group of SEO's, lest that undermine the whole effort. Webmasters want genuine honest answers, they need to know about both high risk and low risk options and the risks and rewards for both.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

All of this should be done in a non-proprietary manner and should not become a promotional tool for any one firm or group of SEO's, lest that undermine the whole effort. Webmasters want genuine honest answers, they need to know about both high risk and low risk options and the risks and rewards for both.


The problem is this last part of your post. I agree that webmasters want genuine and honest answers but who will decide what is honest and who will know when it's geuine. As you see from this debate there is no concensus on those terms and certainly not one body that talks this case.

SEMPO is doing what they think is right, Bruce is doing his thing and others are doing what they believe can help. Yes, some of them probably also have promotional/branding reasons for doing so but I don't think we will get the most active and knowladagble people to invest time in this unless we let them glow in the fame if it suceeds - at least to a certain limit :)

I do not think we will have one large global union of SEOs soon - if ever. I think we will see a number of different groups get organized around different goals, methods or ethics. When such groups get more well established and prove themselfs I think it will be time to get a global "union" of some kind in place - a global union of organized SEOs. Even with the differences between such groups I find it more likely that they can come to a global agreement in line with what you suggest, Brad.

[Brad]

but who will decide what is honest and who will know when it's geuine.

My point is there can be lies of omission to. If I were a doctor advising a patient, i think I'm bound to explain all available courses of treatment to the patient, even the risky ones, and then explain why I am recommending one particular option. Likewise if I were a lawyer I owe it to the client to explain all the options open to them in thier case, not just one or the other. I don't think one can claim 'full disclosure' to the client without mentioning these at least on the forms and SEO educational materials.

Now as an SEO you are free to strike out a paragraph on say cloaking if you don't do that and explain why you do not think it is a good idea and will not do it.

Of course, disclosure is a two edged sword - it also means that an SEO who only does low risk optimization might have to advise a client that they, might not be able to meet the clients expectations for ranking a gambling site for example and that SEO might have to decline to take the job.


I think we will see a number of different groups get organized around different goals, methods or ethics. When such groups get more well established and prove themselfs I think it will be time to get a global "union" of some kind in place

Mikkel, i think you are right. Lasting change, and willing complience comes in increments and is largely generational. I also think there are many roads to Rome both commercial and altruistic and they do not preclude each other.

[fathom]

My point is there can be lies of omission to. If I were a doctor advising a patient, i think I'm bound to explain all available courses of treatment to the patient, even the risky ones, and then explain why I am recommending one particular option. Likewise if I were a lawyer I owe it to the client to explain all the options open to them in thier case, not just one or the other. I don't think one can claim 'full disclosure' to the client without mentioning these at least on the forms and SEO educational materials.

Now as an SEO you are free to strike out a paragraph on say cloaking if you don't do that and explain why you do not think it is a good idea and will not do it.

Of course, disclosure is a two edged sword - it also means that an SEO who only does low risk optimization might have to advise a client that they, might not be able to meet the clients expectations for ranking a gambling site for example and that SEO might have to decline to take the job.




Mikkel, i think you are right. Lasting change, and willing complience comes in increments and is largely generational. I also think there are many roads to Rome both commercial and altruistic and they do not preclude each other.

Brad - that is a perfect example.

We can't kid yourself here. The vast majority of top ranked websites (backed by an SEO) have some form of spam (spam I use loosely). If it's not common knowledge, it's unlikely to be labeled spam but - if you show it "precisely" to Google - would they agree?

Maybe because of TP there just might be some legal precedence to guide - but as of today - it's not illegal... but it is illegal to defraud clients, it is illegal to mis-represent yourself, your service, and/or your techniques.

This is what guides me... and clients make the call.

Clients make money, I make money, and I've been innovative enough to stay ahead of "common practices" as I am sure many of you have as well.

Unfortuately, (in most cases) you can't be "ethical" to the client -- if you're intent is being "ethical" to the search engine... attempting both -- fruition is a long time coming and these tend to be the strategies that many ex-clients report.

[NFFC]

>I don't think anyone could argue that Alan or Jill's methods and those with like beliefs earned the industry much of the bad reputation.

Oh I could, for weeks on end.

I think the last two posts in this thread from brad and fathom are the best so far, in fact as good as I have seen on the forum.

>If I were a doctor advising a patient, i think I'm bound to explain all available courses of treatment to the patient, even the risky ones

That really hits home for me, I think its a great anaolgy.

>The vast majority of top ranked websites (backed by an SEO) have some form of spam

Again, a bulls-eye.

I'll add my two penneth, we have always 3 sometimes 4 players in this game.

Users
Website Owners
SEO's [sometimes]
Search Engines

SEO's exist as a bridge between the search engines and the web site owners, but the good SEO's [imho] leap their focus to the users. That is a hard path to take, to say to a client that you more concerned with their users than you are with them is tough to do and still get the job.

In order of importance the list is:

Users
Website Owners
Search Engines
SEO's [sometimes]

Some in this thread seem to be trying to pitch:

SEO's [of the corp SEM variety] in partnership with Search Engines



Website Owners






Users


That don't fly.

[ihelpyou]

Well, I finally had enough.

Danny Sullivan: You started this thread by asking why it is the SEM/SEO industry has this bad reputation?

Well, from the many posts in here and specifically, the last few posts in this thread, I think it's "very" clear exactly why this industry has the bad rap.

Go ahead people, ridicule me all you wish, but facts are facts. Those of you who think you are Professional just because you 'inform' your client as to any risks, trust me, you are "not" Professionals in many of our books.

You 'could' become a Professional if you actually 'educated' your clients as to the truly long-term ways to achieving success in the regular search engine results.

Believe me, I can show any of you a good many "tough" terms I have achieved through good redesigns and SEO. Many of them. I could put up lists that would top many of you and make you look sick.

Danny: You want to know why? Simply read the above posts to get your answer. It's clear as day. It's not blurry. It's very much common sense.

Unless or until you all figure this out for "our" industry, the industry will continue down the same path it has gone from the beginning.

It's tough taking responsibility for actions. It's time the industry starts looking within itself if we are to achieve any respect.

The many new webmasters and owners who will be reading these forums over the months and years is staggering. If you want to succeed with changing the image of this industry, then attitudes as to acceptable behavior must be changed within the industry itself. Until that is done, you all can forget it.

BTW, don't worry,... this is my last post in this place. It's not friendly to my way of thinking,....unless the leaders start putting their foot down.

See ya..

Doug Heil

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

>I don't think anyone could argue that Alan or Jill's methods and those with like beliefs earned the industry much of the bad reputation.

Oh I could, for weeks on end.

I was tempted, but I didn't want to be the one to say it. You did, NFFC :)
Anyway, I actually do agree with you. I think it is way to simple to just point fingers in one direction and claim that it's only one group of SEOs that has done all the damage to the industry's bad reputation, or, to rule out specific people as not having any share in it. All of us us that have taken part in this public discussion - ever since it started, have contributed in good and bad to what we have today.

Besides, I do not think pointing fingers at anyone is going to do any good for anyone.

[seobook]

Well, from the many posts in here and specifically, the last few posts in this thread, I think it's "very" clear exactly why this industry has the bad rap.

I personally think the industry has a bad rap because the industry should have a bad rap. Not for the actions of one or two people or a few forum posts, but for an extremely logical reason.

Lets pretend SEO in general had a great reputation. Then a bunch of scammers would claim to be SEO and the rep would get damaged again. It is a cycle. It is just how it works.

Go ahead people, ridicule me all you wish, but facts are facts. Those of you who think you are Professional just because you 'inform' your client as to any risks, trust me, you are "not" Professionals in many of our books.

It is not about your preference book. It is not about my preference book. It is about the website of the client and how he / she / they are profiting from out work.

Those who claim a status of professionalism are not necissarily better, just simply they are more prone to judge others as being "not professional."

Ethical or professional are just tags...just like the do not remove tags on a pillow. At the end of the day I do not think they mean a whole bunch. Chis is a better speaker / typer than I though...
http://searchguild.com/tpage8160-0.html

You 'could' become a Professional if you actually 'educated' your clients as to the truly long-term ways to achieving success in the regular search engine results.

I actually pride myself on the fact that this is what I do. When it makes sense I create a new concept a new site and a new brand to help people promote their services in a more long-term manner.

I may not be an expert at all that stuff, but I do my best, and I keep learning. I supplement that with manipulating search results to try to drive customers.

The problem with "just focusing on SEO" is that it usually does not help your clients achieve truly long-term success.

Search engines will continue to get smarter over time. Currently the web is rather fragmented and search engines are not that sophisticated. Give it another decade or so and you will absolutely need to be able to create good original ideas or be unique to be extremely successful on the web long-term.

Believe me, I can show any of you a good many "tough" terms I have achieved through good redesigns and SEO. Many of them. I could put up lists that would top many of you and make you look sick.

I distinctly remember you downplaying when I said that I was trying to rank well for "seo." You stated that not many people search for terms like that. This above quote of yours makes it appear as though you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I am glad that you have clients who have top ranking websites for competitive terms. I am sure most of us do. It is not about me or you though. It is about the satisfaction and profits of those clients.

Unless or until you all figure this out for "our" industry, the industry will continue down the same path it has gone from the beginning.

It's tough taking responsibility for actions. It's time the industry starts looking within itself if we are to achieve any respect.

I think there are many respectible people within the industry. At the end of the day though I can only control my actions. So long as they are good and clients are happy with what I did then that is as much as I can do.

You can't control the at large public perception of something that many people think of as a black art. The only thing you can do is educate them.

Many SEOs do not want to do that though because some think they would lose some of their clients if they gave away their secret info. Lots of good information passes through these types of forums. Other good information is dismissed as inaccurate or incorrect by people who are ethical professionals.

It is my belief that many of the ethical professionals like that tag simply to say I am better than you and I deserve more. It is fine if people think that way, but it is not ok to call that a legit attempt at improving the reputation of the industry.

The many new webmasters and owners who will be reading these forums over the months and years is staggering. If you want to succeed with changing the image of this industry, then attitudes as to acceptable behavior must be changed within the industry itself. Until that is done, you all can forget it.

Who is to define what is acceptible? Many people think that because they have been around longer that they can define how things should go. To me that is absurd.

There are certain names I specifically look for when glancing at posts. If I see a MakeMeTop or a SearchEngineBlog I make sure I read it because I know there is a ton of wisdom there that I could learn from.

Those are examples of people who do a good job of leading by example, and I rarely hear them talk about others in a bad light. They do their job, they do it good, and they help when they can - that is how you improve the industry reputation.

It is all about learning and teaching and doing a good job. That is it. The only guidelines for SEO are that you make sales. If you learn a functional way to do it that is not mainstream good for you, that is probably a big advantage for you and your clients.

I have found that my creative efforts have went much further at making sales than my black and white textbook type rule following actions have.

We all make our choices and live with what we do. At the end of the day the results for the clients and how good I feel about helping them is all that matters.

BTW, don't worry,... this is my last post in this place. It's not friendly to my way of thinking,....unless the leaders start putting their foot down.

What are you talking about? Putting the foot down? This is probably one of the top couple SEO forums and it is only a few months old.

High signal to noise ratio, tons of experience, tons of answers, and no set tone that scares away people.

The single biggest reason this forum is taking off so well is that it is allowing a diverse group of opinions to mesh. Filtering ideas is not a way to solve problems or build communities.

If the forum needs to be "your way" then it should be your forum. Thankfully Danny is making this "our forum" by allowing various viewpoints to exist in conjunction with one another.

[Webmaster T]

Right on, Webmaster T.
To my mind, the best stakeholders in this industry to do the finger-pointing at the goats are the Search Engines. They know best what they regard as goat practices (I assume that's anything that goes against the Guidelines or Terms of Service).I disagree, SE make most goat practices known through their guidelines, SES, attendance isn't necessary, info like this is always documented somewhere else if you look around you'll find it. Google has GoogleGuy and it looks like Yahoo! and MSN may have a rep in the forums helping to increase understanding of the guidelines. The line between goats and sheep IMO, are only blurred if you want them to be, or you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand the guidelines.

If you don't understand the guidelines are you a Professional or just someone who hung up a shingle claiming to a be a Professional? That is a big contributing factor to the reputation of the Industry. If those in the industry can't decide who is a Professional, IMO, it's unfair to think a consumer can. Is it any wonder they are confused.

This isn't the SE's mess it is the SEO Industries mess to clean up. I agree with Alan. SE's have no stake in the editorial results beyond the algos that deliver the results. The minute SE's say this or that is fine, those who choose to blur the lines between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" have the information to do so. Blurring the lines is an action which could be contributing to the bad reputation by further confusing consumers.

IMO, That is why SE's want no part of anything along the lines of standards including a white or black list of firms. In that scenario they are taking responsibility for something that doesn't really provide any benefit to them for taking on that extra responsibility. If they thought it could they would have done it a loooong time ago.

How can consumers be expected to determine risk when there is confusion over what is risky and what isn't within the industry explaining the risk. The degree of risk one SEO sees is not the risk another sees. Once again how do consumers weigh the risk?

It can depend on the way the inherent risk of a technique is presented. Saying, "this gets sites banned, but I've never been banned" or "this gets sites banned, but I'll protect your main domain" is not really explaining all the risk. Consumers don't see a risk when explained like that. There are risks that have nothing to do with SEO. Are these being explaining as well?

I was tempted, but I didn't want to be the one to say it. You did, NFFC :)
Anyway, I actually do agree with you. I think it is way to simple to just point fingers in one direction and claim that it's only one group of SEOs that has done all the damage to the industry's bad reputation, or, to rule out specific people as not having any share in it.Agreed, perhaps much in my post should have been bolded. There is shared responsibility, I agree with that point entirely! This thread wouldn't be about Industry reputation but personal reputation if we weren't all sharing in the responsibility.

My intention wasn't to point a finger as that has no constructive value whatsoever. I was making the point that in order to identify the problem and effect change the actions of those responsible should be evaluated. I wasn't picking a side and saying one is good and one is bad. I don't see it in those terms.

IMO, the reputation is all about consumer confusion. There are more than a few who contribute to that confusion by blurring the lines of "appropriate" techniques. They blur the lines for their benefit so they should be held responsible for their actions. Call it finger pointing if you wish, at least you didn't call me a spam cop which I really hate! If we don't discuss reponsibility then... there is no starting point for change to occur. It seems to me you may want the staus quo, which, although I don't see that as a solution, I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[seobook]

IMO, the reputation is all about consumer confusion.
I agree 100%.

There are more than a few who contribute to that confusion by blurring the lines of "appropriate" techniques. They blur the lines for their benefit so they should be held responsible for their actions.

I do not think I blur the line for my own benefit, but I think much of the statements about what is "appropriate" are incorrect. Results matter. Ethical compliance to a script does not.

I don't know if after the Florida update whether or not you were fielding phone calls and emails from crying webmasters who did not know you, but I was. Many people who were following "appropriate" behavior still saw their sites fall and their businesses go under. Results matter. Ethical compliance to a script does not.

Call it finger pointing if you wish, at least you didn't call me a spam cop which I really hate! If we don't discuss reponsibility then... there is no starting point for change to occur.
There is a responsiblity. And that responsiblity is to educate webmasters with adequate and accurate current information to help them chose the correct SEO firm for their needs.

It seems to me you may want the staus quo, which, although I don't see that as a solution, I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I certainly aim to change status quo, but by using ideas that I think work. I do not think blurring or defining lines is the correct solution.

[NFFC]

>If you don't understand the guidelines are you a Professional or just someone who hung up a shingle claiming to a be a Professional?

I have my own guidelines, they may or may not mesh with whatever the search engine du jour is.

>I agree with Alan. SE's have no stake in the editorial results beyond the algos that deliver the results

Then you Sir, with respect, are a fool. Who else apart from the web site owner is responsible for what they present to their users?

>They blur the lines for their benefit so they should be held responsible for their actions.

Exactly.

>at least you didn't call me a spam cop which I really hate!

Sure you do.

[Webmaster T]

I do not think I blur the line for my own benefit, but I think much of the statements about what is "appropriate" are incorrect. Results matter. Ethical compliance to a script does not.Agreed, I didn't use the word ethics once because it isn't applicable to SEO techniques. I think if you looked around you might find I don't have any problems getting results.;) I don't even sell SEO because that is misrepresenting what I do. I do web development. I happen to know a little about SEO only because the same skills and knowledge are required and I'm interested in how SE's work. I don't look for tricks because "trixs are for kids, silly wabbit";)
I don't know if after the Florida update whether or not you were fielding phone calls and emails from crying webmasters who did not know you, but I was. Many people who were following "appropriate" behavior still saw their sites fall and their businesses go under. Results matter. Ethical compliance to a script does not.Yes helped more then one out. Most of the sites I maintain rose or stayed where they were. The only one affected is one where I pushed the envelope a bit with links. It dropped maybe 20 places.
There is a responsiblity. And that responsiblity is to educate webmasters with adequate and accurate current information to help them chose the correct SEO firm for their needs.Few webmasters need much help beyond telling them to look at the implementation of the HTML code. A webmaster looks at what an iffy SEO does and shakes his head. It's people who own sites and corporate types who are confused. I think it is a fallacy any webhead needs much help choosing an SEO.
I certainly aim to change status quo, but by using ideas that I think work. I do not think blurring or defining lines is the correct solution.I'm not concerned about you, I'm not really concerned about what any SEO thinks as I left that, and the industry as you know it, in 98. I care about consumers perceptions of the Industry. I think consumers do need the lines defined. why? Because every call I take at support starts off something like "is this spam" or "is this firm OK". It's obvious to me Joe Public doesn't have a clue and some in the Industry aren't making it any easier. Just look at the information about SEO services on most SEO sites. They aren't even defining what they do half the time little on what are accepted industry techniques.

[fathom]

Well, I finally had enough.

Danny Sullivan: You started this thread by asking why it is the SEM/SEO industry has this bad reputation?

Well, from the many posts in here and specifically, the last few posts in this thread, I think it's "very" clear exactly why this industry has the bad rap.

Go ahead people, ridicule me all you wish, but facts are facts. Those of you who think you are Professional just because you 'inform' your client as to any risks, trust me, you are "not" Professionals in many of our books.

You 'could' become a Professional if you actually 'educated' your clients as to the truly long-term ways to achieving success in the regular search engine results.

Not here to change anyones view, or saying spam is ok, but at the same time not here suggesting everything is black and white either.

I also don't believe Search Engines are "flawless". If they got bugs that are vulnerable "fix them".

Nor am I here to trash anyone. I'm a candid, honest, and quite innovative person. I don't mind constructive critizism either.

That said, if you think a person is "not" a professional because they have a different approach, or have a different take than you - you are sadly ill informed.

I'm here to education myself and to share what I know and to further guide my clients in the very best way to develop, and maintain fruition... not just "your way".

[lots0]

I think the open question is; Improving the reputation of the SEM industry.

If we are serious about improving our reputation or public image we are all going to have to get past the major difference of opinion within our own ranks.

After years of heated emotional debate, this rift over Search Engine compliance (white hat/black hat - good/evil) is no closer to being resolved than the day it started. So if we are ever going to actually improve the reputation of the SEM/SEO industry we are going to all have to agree to disagree over this compliance issue, put it behind us and focus on the problem at hand, improving our reputation and public perception.

In my opinion, the biggest problem the SEO reputation faces are the clients that have been ripped off by paying for a service they did not receive (a crime in any country) and clients that have been penalized or banned by the Search Engines because of methods their SEM/SEO used.

If you all truly want to improve the reputation of SEM/SEO how about donating (you know, give away for free) your time, knowledge, skill and resources to the sites that have been hurt by these scammers, thieves and incompetents...

It seems to me that the press generated by a non-profit group of professionals donating their services to correct some of the damage done by these scammers and thieves would be worth its weight in gold and would do far more to improve the reputation of the SEM/SEO industry than some group of folks (self serving or not) that have a financial interest in the industry, making decisions about industry guide lines and making decisions about who is in compliance (or not) with those same guide lines.

I have to say that this is the best thread about this subject I have ever read (and yes I did read it all :-).
Some very thought provoking posts with only the occasional irrational extremist (you know who you are.)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

If you all truly want to improve the reputation of SEM/SEO how about donating (you know, give away for free) your time, knowledge, skill and resources to the sites that have been hurt by these scammers, thieves and incompetents...

Allthough being an interesting idea I do not think it's very likely to happen. You could argue that the same idea would be good for a lot of other scammy businesses. I would love to get a new car from another dealer after I got ripped off by that other one. And what about my new house? The construction engineers tricked me - I wishI could go and get a new house. Oh yeah, and my new rolex gold watch that i picked up for $25 - did you know, it turned out to be fake. I wish I could go to another dealer and pick up a real one... for free.

You see, a lot of the people that got scammed (I am not saying all - far from) did so because they did not want to pay what good SEO costs. Maybe they asked you and me and we gave him the price it cost to do good SEO on his site. He turned us down and went to a scammer and lost. Now, you want me to pick it up and give for free what he did not want to pay for. Sorry, but I am not going to be part of that rescue team :)

[projectphp]

If you all truly want to improve the reputation of SEM/SEO how about donating (you know, give away for free) your time, knowledge, skill and resources to the sites that have been hurt by these scammers, thieves and incompetents...
I thought I did. Or are posts made in threads by and about affected sites not counted? ;)

If we are serious about improving our reputation or public image we are all going to have to get past the major difference of opinion within our own ranks.
Many professions with ethics and codes of conduct are far more hostile than the rather small SEO/M community. Look at lawyers. Their whole profession is based upon conflict.

There are, for want of a better term, "meta-ethics" that overide lawyers' actions. Client attorney priviledge, boundaries that are set etc etc. Some lawyers push very hard toward one boundary or another, but they all still are governed by one set of rules. Nothing stopping one from choosing to represent Ted Bundy, or indeed to prosecute him.

What is being debated is precisely these meta-ethics. IMHO, the missing ingredient is some form of knowledge requirement. Too many people say they do SEO/M because, well, how hard is anything to say? Have web page, will do SEO/M is about all that is required.

By having some form of knowledge requirement in order to be an SEO/M, a lot of the bad vibe goes away, and ethics become almost moot as the starting point.

Some very thought provoking posts with only the occasional irrational extremist (you know who you are.)
Don't be so harsh on yourself lots0 :) (sorry, to good a line to pass up!)

Seriously, this thread has been good, with some excellent perspective all round.

For some reason, though, the debate seems to come back to ethics and a code there of. Is that really the only or best way to improve the SEO/M communiy's reputation (which I still am not sure exactly what this constitutes)? I am far from convinced. Look at Real Estate Agents, used car salesmen and Lawyers. These are all industries with exactly these sorts of guidlines in place. People don't tell lawyer jokes because their rep is fantastic.

Surely there are many other ways to improve SEO/M's reputation, including less devisive ones, that are worth exploring as well.

[fathom]

You see, a lot of the people that got scammed (I am not saying all - far from) did so because they did not want to pay what good SEO costs. Maybe they asked you and me and we gave him the price it cost to do good SEO on his site. He turned us down and went to a scammer and lost. Now, you want me to pick it up and give for free what he did not want to pay for. Sorry, but I am not going to be part of that rescue team :)

Additionally, clients are not necessarily without fault. In realizing "you got banned" -- the natural reaction is (as we have all seen) "I got ripoff"). Clearly (none that I have seen) are claiming "lack of performance", thus... the return they have made from "spammy practices" is as much a factor as the lack of knowledge of their use, and the ban itself.

If a client - made (for example only) $50K on a $2K investment and they wouldn't have made that without the spam, and one of these two considerations:

1. If they knew that it was spam before signing would they have done it? If not would that $50K be their automatically? or

2. If they knew they would make $50K for paying $2K and also knew it was a short term would this change their decision on point 1.?

The fact that Google "is" on removal of said spam (TP incident) lifting the ban seems to indicate - they are not really getting ripped.. they're just not getting what they think they still should be entitled to. (hypothetical example only)

I hate seeing things like this - but before I would agree to anything e.g. helping; I would want to see the "before" and "after" balance sheets to confirm "I'm not being had!"

I have yet to hear - I got zero performance and banned to boot.

Just the same, and as harsh as it is to say, we have all lived in a CAVEAT EMPTOR society for a very long time.

[fathom]

Surely there are many other ways to improve SEO/M's reputation, including less devisive ones, that are worth exploring as well.

The debate is raging on almost every webmaster and SEO forum, and related newletter services. That must be reaching 20 - 30 million folks or more.

Just "this" does alot of good -- noting that most forums are up compared to their normal summertime lows.

[seobook]

If we are serious about improving our reputation or public image we are all going to have to get past the major difference of opinion within our own ranks.

I think that is the single biggest problem.

Good to see ya over here Lots0 :)

[lots0]



If you all truly want to improve the reputation of SEM/SEO how about donating (you know, give away for free) your time, knowledge, skill and resources to the sites that have been hurt by these scammers, thieves and incompetents...


Allthough being an interesting idea I do not think it's very likely to happen. You could argue that the same idea would be good for a lot of other scammy businesses. I would love to get a new car from another dealer after I got ripped off by that other one. And what about my new house? The construction engineers tricked me - I wishI could go and get a new house. Oh yeah, and my new rolex gold watch that i picked up for $25 - did you know, it turned out to be fake. I wish I could go to another dealer and pick up a real one... for free.
While I see your point, I do disagree. We do not sell cars, build houses or sell watches. What we do do is provide a very valuable service in a fast growing market. Analogies are fine in their place, but often times in these discussions they vastly over simplify the issue.

I am not saying that every website that has been hurt should get free professional help, but some should. Remember the issue here is to improve the Reputation of the industry, not correct all wrong doings of the scammers and thieves.

I can think of no better way to improve the way we are perceived by the general public and the press than to have a group of professional SEO/SEM that donate some their time, helping a few of the little guys that have been hurt. If done correctly (lots of promotion across a wide spectrum of markets) the press on something like this would help greatly to improve our image and educate the public and press that not all of us are spammers and thieves and it would also help to educate the public that we do indeed provide a useful and valuable service. It would also show that we acknowledge there are some problems in the industry and that we are at least making some positive actions.

Lets face it folks, to the general public we are all a bunch of shady lowlifes and digressing into this “me good - you bad” mentality is doing nothing but reenforceing this reputation and public image even more. If we want to correct this negative image then we are going to have to be pro-active and do something other than argue about ethics or the lack thereof .

If no one likes my idea fine, lets all brainstorm some ideas and see what we can come up with.

My point is, no matter your opinion on compliance or your stand on ethics, this negative press is hurting us all. If we want to correct this negative reputation we are all ( or at least a majority of us) going to have to pull together or we have no hope to ever correct the image that we are all a bunch of lowlifes.

If we are unable to pull together as a group of professionals to correct this, then maybe our industry deserves the reputation it has....

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

My point is, no matter your opinion on compliance or your stand on ethics, this negative press is hurting us all.

I have come to the same conclusion as others have pointed out here, that there really is no "us" - and maybe that is one of the core issues to the situation.

This also goes for how much it hurts, or how much it feels like its hurting. Personally I do not like bad press, who does, but I can't really say that it is hurting me or the business I am invlolved in. Not at all. In fact, it may even be good for business. Now, I am not saying I do not want to improve the reputation of this industry, I am just saying that it may not be that everyone has the same motivation. It's not hurting everyone the same.

I believe it will take time to mature this industry before there will be anything close to a "us" - or, at least some more groups that speak for a larger part of the industry, than what we've seen so far. There are many good attempts of doing so going on right now, but I just don't think we are very close to get to the "us" level yet.

[fathom]

The two greatest issues on the table (IMHO) are not, spam control, code of ethics, or conduct, disreputable SEOs, bad reputation of the industry, SEO clients getting zero benefit, penalized or banned.

It is:

1. Lack of knowledge and skill in this extremely immature industry, and

2. And the abundance of demand for qualified services.

All the precious factors are: no different than ordered ranked positioning (output) of these two considerations

Point #2 is even a greater concern as more workload per qualified (self educated) servicing SEO staffer, the greater chance of shortcutting to save each and every new relationship... and IMHO this is the likely scenerio that cause TPs downfall (but that is an uninformed opinion at best).

Go back to "less than ten years after the news press was commercialized" you will likely find a similiar trend - or any of today's developed industry segments.

The biggest difference - forums, and newsletters allow a "little bit of knowledge and skill" today without investment into the total historical archive.

Additionally, each time one of us speaks - what we don't say (because we don't have time to write a book of all current facts, theories, observations, and conclusions) is as important as what we do say.

The fact that others must do their own homework -- and often don't comes back to point #1.

He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past
- George Orwell

[Jill Whalen]

One thing that is pretty neat about this discussion -- and perhaps it says a lot about the SEO/SEM industry as a whole -- even though there are so many differing view points and ways of doing things in this biz, we can still all come together in a forum like this and discuss it.

We may never come to a consensus, but it says a lot to see so many members from so many different forums here to discuss this issue.

[rustybrick]

I'll add to what Jill has said.

I have seen dozens of threads on this topic, this is one of the most civilized ones I have ever seen. I have to admit there was a civilized one going on in an other forum as well. But 90% of these threads normally blow up and someone ends up getting hurt.

Great thread and excellent posts!

[lots0]

...there really is no "us" - and maybe that is one of the core issues to the situation.You maybe right. Getting a group of people as diverse, eclectic, independent, unique and opinionated as SEO/SEMs to pull together for such a vague and enigmatic idea as improving the reputation of the
industry as a whole, maybe nothing but a pipe dream.

It's not hurting everyone the same. Oh I very much agree with this. The bad reputation SEO/SEMs have has not hurt the amount of money I make and like you (and others) this bad reputation may even help to increase my bottom line. But it still makes me cringe when I read some reporter, blogger or see some other report talk about what a bunch of scammers and spammers and thieves we ALL are.

[dannysullivan]

Split HonestSEO.com comments into new thread: HonestSEO Web Site (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=875)