An SEM Code Of Conduct?

[dannysullivan]

As part of the discussion (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=566) about improving the reputation of SEO, Kal asked:

Why can't SEMPO enforce a Code of Conduct (or) why can't SEO Pros become the accepted industry body?
SEMPO has said it doesn't want to be a policing body, and in terms of spam monitoring, I agree for reasons I've explained earlier in the other thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=566).

However, there's no reason why SEMPO couldn't draft a code of conduct that members could voluntarily agree to. This would let SEMPO maintain its goal of promoting and educating people about SEM with the broad support of members, while a subset of members that want could choose to take an extra step in agreeing to the standards.

If not SEMPO, certainly anyone else could do this. But one of the challenges would be enforcement. Easy to put up a logo. I assume if you take part, you'd then agree that people could lodge complaints against you. That means someone needs to review these and post findings. I suppose a committee of people might do this.

What's in the code? No misselling? Non confusing jargon? Explain any potential risks to clients? A hard thing with this is there will be some disagreement in many of these things. Some people who have high prices for the same work others do might be accused of a rip-off. Yet that doesn't take into account the reputation, client management and other factors that may go into play.

Does the code say you won't spam? If so, another can of worms, given that the search engines themselves define that. But perhaps some search engines might take part. And if not, perhaps those agreeing to the code will trust their peers.

So...some thoughts. Pros, cons and most of all, any practical ideas on how such a thing might actually come about and be more widely accepted to those who want to follow it?

[bwelford]

Well perhaps to put up a contrarian view up front:

Checking whether products from a given supplier are in exact conformance with complex Standards is usually a painstaking and detailed process.

A much simpler test of any supplier is whether that supplier has satisfied customers or not. I believe it is the customers who can provide the best and most accurate feedback on given SEO's. We are not dealing here with some complex process where there can sometimes be arguments on whether a professional such as a lawyer or an accountant has handled something in the wrong way. Spam is not measured on some celestial, objective and scientific scale. The only workable definition must be that Spam for a given Search Engine is those web pages that have been de-indexed because they are deemed at that time to be in conflict with that Search Engine's Guidelines.

I think there is a duty on the Search Engines to provide at least notice to customers whose web pages have suffered de-indexation. Such customers can then at least make their views about such SEO suppliers widely known. I think such an approach would work well for 95% of the cases that trouble us all.

[Wail]

SEMPO take your money and let you join. (Correct me if I'm wrong?)

I can list plenty of large SEO agencies who have no time for that. The SEO agencies who tend to work with the international web dev agencies.

If SEMPO, or someone else, was more active then it would be better. Take our money and then use to keep an eye on its members. If a complaint comes in, "SEO company #A hid links on our site!" then SEMPO (or whoever) could investigate, compare the results of the investigation against an agreed code of ethics and strike SEO company #A off the "approved list" if found gulity.

What could go on this code of ethics? What should go on this code of ethics?

We already have a start. Both Google and Yahoo have pages which state what they don't want to see.
- Hidden text
- Misleading redirects
- Excessive crosslinking
- Doorway pages
- Cloaking
- Attempts to trick the spider or algorithm.

If this is an ethical list then we should add to it:
- Attempts to trick the client.
- Mis-selling the product

Here's a tricky one:
Search engines don't like automated query tools. I imagine many readers on these forums use one, probably for keyword place checking rather than submissions.

[rustybrick]

Here's a tricky one:
Search engines don't like automated query tools. I imagine many readers on these forums use one, probably for keyword place checking rather than submissions.

I can say that I don't. There are alternatives to these tools, acceptable alternatives.

regarding the SEM Code of Conduct, didn't Bruce Clay come out with a code at http://www.bruceclay.com/web_ethics.htm

[I, Brian]

The trouble with the process is you would have to account for the fact that SEM/SEO companies could easily buy up false positives or negatives. There is a lot of animosity between at least certain individuals in the industry.

[Wail]

The trouble with the process is you would have to account for the fact that SEM/SEO companies could easily buy up false positives or negatives. There is a lot of animosity between at least certain individuals in the industry.

True. I'm not sure how that impacts on a code of ethics though. It certainly impacts on how it'll be enforced - if it is, which is a stage away from having one.

Here's an extra ethical point.
- No false allegations of unethical conduct

[I, Brian]

How are you going to judge false, though? What court of law is there that can decide the matter? There isn't. Any judgement is therefore going to have to fall on guesswork. And if the real world is a model to work by, that means real impartiality is going to be remarkably difficult to practice, and allegations of croneyism are going to follow any such body.

I also find it very interesting that, in the other thread, some of the persons pushing for a Code of Ethics the most - specifically to elevate themselves above webmasters who routinely break the explicit webmaster guidelines of Google and co - have themselves been plainly demonstrated to have routinely broken such recommendations.

In fact, the Google recommendations in themselves are pretty down on SEO in general, and at some point any SEO has to answer "no" to the follow question Google poses:

"Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

Therefore, anybody in the SEO industry is going to be liable to be called up on the fact that we make site pages more visible to search engines, precisely because search engines exist. Therefore at some point pots are going to have to call kettles black.

With these sort of issues in mind, getting a disparate industry to agree collectively to be held to account by any terms is going to be rather uphill, to say the least - unless it focusses first on the SEM/client relationship, rather than the SEM/search engine relationship.

[Kal]

If SEMPO, or someone else, was more active then it would be better. Take our money and then use to keep an eye on its members.Agreed. But I do think the search engines need to be involved from the outset. How about this:

1) Each of the major search engines offer a panel representative to work with SEMPO (or a new org if they weren't willing) to develop a list of common standards/guidelines in relation to acceptable site content. Looking at the Google and Yahoo lists, I see many common areas and don't think they'd have a problem creating a standard list they'd like to see webmasters adhere to. The engines are already sponsoring and advising SEMPO right? Why not take it a step further.

2) This common list of guidelines would be published on the SEMPO/org site and possibly on the submission pages of each engine.

3) SEMPO/org could develop a Code of Practice and Set of Industry Standards for members to follow, based on these common engine guidelines and standard business ethics. Someone in the other thread said that the PR industry doesn't have set standards in the US. In Australia it is quite different. Members of the PRIA are expected to adhere to an agreed Code of Conduct and industry standards in order to become a member. This works quite well. I'm not sure if it would apply as well to the US but I'm throwing it out there.

4) SEMs/SEOs wanting to join SEMPO/org would need to adhere to the agreed standards in order to be accepted for membership. They pay their fee and receive benefits (as outlined by SEMPO already) and a compliancy logo they can display on their websites.

5) SEMPO/org monitors 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.

How am I doing so far?

[dannysullivan]

I think it sounds good up to 4. In the case of SEMPO, I wouldn't make it a requirement to follow the code of standards. Some firms simply may not be comfortable with that yet, even if they are squeeky clean. They may prefer to see how things work out before they toss their hats in. Yet some of those same firms could still help with the other missions that SEMPO has.

So..right now if you're a SEMPO member, you can use the SEMPO logo. But if you take the extra step and agree to a particular code, then perhaps you've got an additional logo to use.

In some ways, it's sort of like what the EU is doing. Many of the members use the Euro, but not all of them. There are problems with that, but some members need more time to adjust. And some members may simply not want to make that extra step ever, but the organization overall may still benefit by involving them somehow.

If you keep things voluntary, then I think you get much more acceptance, yet you still make a very important step forward.

[bwelford]

Helloo ... I'm over here!

I'm still from Missouri on all this. Let me apply a little bit of 'helicopter vision' on this. In other words, stand really far back and look through half closed eyes at what is going on.

I think the words industry, profession and standards are being used far too quickly here. If I want a bridge to be built, then I want to make sure that the engineer I use knows how to apply the standards and build one that will not fall down. There's no easy way of checking that this guy who calls himself an engineer can really do the job. However the engineering profession has set up a professional designation system so that I can check whether this guy is accredited.

Now let's turn to the Internet, web pages and search engines. Here it's very easy to check whether this particular SEO should be considered for a particular job. If he or she has had web pages they've worked on de-indexed by the Search Engines then they should not be considered. For ease of words, let's call the techniques that resulted in such de-indexation 'spammy techniques'.

Presumably 'spammy techniques' are ones where search algorithms cannot apply weights to merely reduce drastically the importance of the particular element. For whatever reason the Search Engines have decided that a given agency has used sufficient of the 'spammy techniques' for a particular web page that the only solution is de-indexation.

It's being suggested that the Search Engines should work with a group of individuals and companies they apparently don't like too much to attempt to codify the process by which these web pages have been de-indexed. In other words to help build a Spam Detector so that people can check that what they are about to do will fly.

In the aviation field, flight simulators are built because it's very much cheaper to learn to fly on a flight simulator than to learn with an expensive aircraft. In the case of web pages and Search Engines, it's very much easier to use the real thing than to go to these enormous efforts to create the Spam Detector. All that's needed is to be sure that when web pages crash (are de-indexed), there is adequate publicity. To my mind, that's fulfilled by informing the website owner rapidly that the web page has been de-indexed.

[andrewgoodman]

For argument's sake:

Maybe this is way out of left field, but let's say you decide you don't do SEO, just PPC. Or just paid inclusion. Or just one type of PPC. Or one angle like copywriting only applicable to SEO or PPC. Or you have bid management software primarily, but you offer some services. Or you don't, but you could. Or you did once. You see what I'm saying. Not SEO, but some smaller part of SEM or some related service.

What seems to be happening here is that we're moving towards labeling the "typical model company" in a certain image circa 1999, when the industry has clearly moved in a more eclectic direction.

OK, so if you're one of the above, in ambiguous territory, do you qualify for the SEMPO Badge of Merit or not? Will qualifying for it make people think you're now an "SEO," thus actually distorting what you really do in the marketplace's eyes?

Or will not being a part of that, because you've decided you just don't fit the definition, leave you without the badge and cause some clients to wonder why you ain't got it?

I don't like where that could take us. It could interfere with the marketplace, IMHO, and the ability of companies to get their reputations and ideas out there to prospective clients without worrying about what "some mouthpiece" might be saying about the value of the Badge that the "other firms" have.

Do ad agencies that do SEO or direct marketing agencies that have a "strong partnership" with an SEO firm get the SEO Badge? Does an in-house SEO practitioner get to apply for the badge in case he's looking for a new job someday? It's all so confusing, and the question of the origins and legitimacy of the new badge seem unclear.

When I'm in a restaurant that has a badge for a health inspection, I know that a health inspector has inspected it. A voluntary code of conduct would be worthless, wouldn't it?

Disturbingly, what if some senior members of the industry agree to and even advocate strong codes of conduct, when everyone knows they employ people who don't follow the code? When everyone knows it's say one thing, and do another? If they're powerful people in the game, does one look the other way? Who will have the courage to stand up and take away that player's badge?

[Nacho]

I think Bruce Clay (http://www.bruceclay.com/web_ethics.htm) has a very good "SEO Code of Ethics" page. Hopefully some of his ideas will become part of this standardized and globally approved "Code of Conduct".

[fathom]

I think Bruce Clay (http://www.bruceclay.com/web_ethics.htm) has a very good "SEO Code of Ethics" page. Hopefully some of his ideas will become part of this standardized and globally approved "Code of Conduct".

You may if you wish you can have at this one. I purposely stayed away from SEM(O) as the broader scope of "business consulting conduct" is the greater theme of importance.

I try to format here but doesn't work well. I can email a copy.

[bwelford]

When I'm in a restaurant that has a badge for a health inspection, I know that a health inspector has inspected it. A voluntary code of conduct would be worthless, wouldn't it?

Your restaurant example, Andrew, illustrates another aspect of all this. It's easy to set up a set of hygiene rules that are necessary for restaurants. However it's very tough to set up a factual basis of choosing the best among a group of restaurants. Just see the problems that Michelin and the others have had in doing just that.

So it's easy to define a set of rules that are necessary for SEO's. In fact, there's just a single rule. They should not cause their clients' web pages to be de-indexed. The Search Engines know who they are. So ...

[Mel]

And who is going to put up the legal fees when Large company A is taken off the list and files a multimillion dollar lawsuit in California against this proposed august body, claiming unfair business practices, illegal interference with their business and/or libel, etc etc?

You do not have to lose a large lawsuit to have it bankrupt you.

[andrewgoodman]

Agreed that involving the SE's would help in the promotion of this minimum standard.

Coupla problems (hate to throw cold water but):

(1) They probably wouldn't do it. Corporate secrecy, liability, bad PR, etc.

(2) Everyone in the world other than companies that cause de-indexing, including the local ice cream shop, falls into the category of "company that did not cause clients to be removed from the index." So even if I don't do SEO (or did it once on a lark), I could probably qualify for the "white hat SEO" badge. Unless Anne Holland sicced her nefarious researchers on me of course to determine whether I am "primarily" an SEO company, which I am not and make no bones about. :D The marketplace confusion that an ethical SEO badge could cause is serious, as companies doing SEM and other online marketing might feel the pressure to have it just in case, lest competitors start whispering that the "accreditation" is vital.

(2a) Causation is a tricky thing. Even defining the boundaries of where some SEO "companies" legally end is tricky. Rogue workers could cause problems for good companies.

(2b) Again, if a Bruce Clay, LLC, or an i-prospect, or whatnot, runs into this sort of problem (not saying they would, just saying what if, and you can change the name to some other company in the biz that might be powerful enough to have friends), do you really think that they'll land on the list, or will that get smoothed over? So again it becomes a governance issue.

(3) This last one bothers me quite a bit. Spam definitions vary, and it's fair to have a different opinion about what constitutes grounds for removal. Paid inclusion comes with editorial standards that could be capriciously applied, as one of my clients recently found out. A company with no spammy intent at all got rejected by Overture's editorial staff for violations like "keyword stuffing." Meanwhile, many pages on Google's index have five times as much keyword stuffing. If an SEO firm tries to optimize for the paid inclusion index and gets whacked by editorial staff at (eg.) Yahoo/Overture because an editor is green or because there is an uneven application of rules at their end (some people even think larger companies might be given more leeway), does that make the SEO a black hat now? In whose opinion? Do I trust Yahoo/Overture to be involved in indirectly rating SEM firms? To the extent that some people at the SE's believe spam = "trying to get your clients' pages ranked higher," we may have an inherent conflict here.

[bwelford]

Whoa, Andrew. You're putting many more words in my mouth than I ever said. I'm not suggesting that the SE's publish a list of Black Hat Companies. Nor even more so that there be a list of White Hat Companies, although some others might.

All I am proposing is that if a SE de-indexes a web page, it immediately informs the owner of that web page. No explanations are given as to why the de-indexation. The aim is to make sure that if there are website owners who have been de-indexed through the actions of their hired (or even internal) SEO's then they know about it real quick. That's the simple solution I am suggesting to clean up this messy and disagreeable situation. Let's bring it out into the open at least to the eyes of those principally involved.

[Brad]

Why not take a smaller step instead: nearly everyone seems to think full disclosure to the client of risks and realistic rewards is a good thing. So why not try to come up with a standardized, plain language 'pattern' SEO disclosure form?

This would be something that SEO's might use to give to clients that would explain 1. what the client can expect from the SEO and performance, 2. what the risks to the client are for the recommended course of action (perhaps check boxes next to optional high risk paragraphs that apply)

By creating a 'model' disclosure agreement that any SEO could use or adapt to thier practice you would have the most direct benefit to clients and the least regulatory baggage. Release it under a creative commons license so it can be copied and adapted without copyright hassles. In this case it is leading by example.

It is a smaller step than a code of conduct but one that might gain much more immediate acceptance since it can help both client and SEO avoid misunderstandings.

[massa]

>So why not try to come up with a standardized, plain language 'pattern' SEO disclosure form?<

We've been using exactly this for over three years now. We call it an insertion order and we do not charge a client or perform any work until it is read, signed and faxed to our office. It states in laymen's terms what we do and do not guarantee, what they can expect in what time frame and that they are authorizing us, as an informed client, to perform stated services on their behalf under the terms and conditions laid out in the insertion order.

It has solved an incredible number of communication problems for us. Since we started using the insertion orders, we've had very little problem with clients claiming they had instructed someone on our staff to perform specific actions yet no one can produce any evidence of such instructions. We have had no charge backs, legal problems, (other than the ones I initiated of course), or accusations of non-performance in breach of contract.

I'll be happy to share it with anyone who turns in an order.

:)

How about a code of ethics that has just three short lines. Three simple things that we could all follow if we so choose. No tests. No accredidations. No governing bodies.
*********************

Do the best you can do
Be proud of what you do
DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU WILL DO
***************************

I try to do this everyday in my business and in my life with one little line I've added just this past year.

Do the best you can do
Be proud of what you do
DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU WILL DO

and charge accordingly

[Kal]

To the extent that some people at the SE's believe spam = "trying to get your clients' pages ranked higher," we may have an inherent conflict here.Agreed. It's a difficult hurdle to jump. I'm also sure that SE involvement would take a LOT of convincing. Voluntary compliancy is pointless IMO, because it doesn't differentiate. I just think it's about time the industry began regulating itself because the existing Free For All reputation is severely damaging.

[bethabernathy]

I was thinking it drives me crazy when my clients call me and say this company has contacted them and can guarantee top placement on Google, etc., etc. I research the company, usually takes about 3 mins. to read something on their site about doorway pages and there is generally not a phone number available to contact the firm. Anyway, I realize that you can report spam to Google etc., but could there be a way to report these companies and have maybe a website where these firms could be listed. Maybe have a new entity that oversees the practices of SEO and works as a governing body that is readily available for consumers to contact related to poor practices. BTW here is one:

http://www.1stspots.com

I got an email from them on Sunday saying:

Will your web site be #1 on Google ?
...Or will it be your competitor's ?

Goes into detail on the site.

Back to my idea. If there was more press out there on the issue that could help. The issue with Traffic-Power News which is being covered by:

http://www.seoconsultants.com/traffic-power/news/

is helpful, but does the average consumer know to look for this? :eek:

[David Wallace]

Back to my idea. If there was more press out there on the issue that could help. The issue with Traffic-Power News which is being covered by:

http://www.seoconsultants.com/traffic-power/news/

is helpful, but does the average consumer know to look for this? :eek:
Well if the average consumer searches for 'Traffic Power' on Google, that SEOConsultants page shows up in # 7 position and everything else above that is all bad press about them. Problem is people that were (are) scammed by them did not do this or already knew they were spammers and took the risk anyway.

[BruceClay]

The problem with standards is perception. And how you perceive something depends upon where you stand.

The web is emerging from the "wild west" stage into a period of accountability, and with that comes the dissenting vocal minority that want to argue against change. In many cases this argument comes in the form of "who do you think you are to tell an industry what to do?" In some cases they simply nitpick and scream and tell you that standards will not work. I often see distractions about religion and hypocrisy, challenges to ethics and morals, all certainly intended to discourage action (or at least to distract the thread). Talk is nice, but what is needed is some form of action. Without action there is no progress, and discouraging progress is as bad as spamming.

It takes a catalyst in order for change to occur. We need action by a group that has contributors and supporters not afraid of loud dissenters. Many people see the need for change, yet many leaders are hesitant to incur the potential wrath of the underworld. Some consider any organization that wants to resolve this issue as being power-hungry dictators imposing their biased and personal agendas on the industry. To avoid that forum discussion, many of the best and brightest have abstained, thinking (that because throughout history chaos eventually surrendered to organization) that all they had to do was lay low and wait it out. I hope to recruit them as supporters.

Ethics that simply state "do no harm" cannot be effectively disputed because they are so common sense that those speaking out against them look like fools. Likewise I consider similar common sense standards statements in the form of a personal Code of Conduct to be obvious. Everyone in this industry has a personal Code of Conduct whether written or not. In my version I believe that "do not deceive" is at the top and applies to everyone: search engines, clients, and site visitors alike. As such, the basic theme of my personal Code of Conduct is to avoid deceptive practices at all costs. Certainly some refined examples and guidelines have helped in making the blatant violation techniques clear to readers and practitioners. But I contend that there cannot ever be a complete list of deceptive tactics. Nor should we try to make one as it mostly helps the enemy. Deception can manifest itself in a myriad of ways we have yet to envision, and none should be acceptable. Examples of the worst cases should be adequate, and confusion should be infrequent. When in doubt, clarify and educate.

As I teach in my courses, "it is not the job of SEO to make pigs fly; it is the job of SEO to genetically re-engineer the site so that it is an eagle". If you strive to make pigs fly, it is deceptive. If you put real subject matter in an expert format and place the key words in the places that clearly identify that subject then you are enhancing the user experience and make the site actually more relevant. The Code of Conduct should encourage SEO's to work in ways that do not disguise pigs or make pigs fly. The Code should promote content improvement and clarity. The search engines should embrace this Code because relevancy is rewarded even if they claim SEO is not. [I recognize that many sites are pigs. In some cases we must simply make them the best pig they can be, but never promise the client an eagle if you cannot do the job.]

The generally accepted measurements of optimization success is [ranking / traffic / conversion / return], and hence our industry is dependant upon the continued good will of the search engines. By acting to identify and speak out against attempts to falsify the content of a web site through deception, the search engine relevancy will improve and the industry will earn the support of the search engines. Understand that if you deceive a search engine you also deceive the consumer, and I consider that form of false representation to be unacceptable. Today, far too many SEO practitioners are part of the problem and not a part of the solution. Sure, there will always be a few SEO practitioners that lag behind and protest loudly and who will continue to deceive because the revenue opportunity by using deception often exceeds the penalty if caught (or because they simply do not know any better) but over time accountability will prevail.

I cannot presume to set a standard for an industry. I am not a sheriff, and I am not trying to be. I do not want to stifle creativity or dictate web design. I am a person that has lived from a time where ranking for the sake of the paying client prevailed. However, today I am rigid about avoiding search engine spam. Even when asked by a client to do something that is allowed, if I think it will soon be spam I refuse. Others in the industry have the exact opposite approach -- spam until caught, then get a new domain and try a new trick. Some clients themselves do not care as long as they get traffic now, next month is not important if faced with extinction. I disagree with the "if you cannot win fairly then cheat" mentality. I cannot presume to speak for them (or condemn them) other than to indicate that I think this short-sighted view hurts our industry and is unnecessary, and I will not do it. And in my opinion the search engines should take decisive action to identify and discourage it.

What I can do is set my own personal standards of behavior. Just for me. I control my behavior, not anybody else's. I have long taken responsibility for myself.

But I can also encourage others to follow my lead. So I have again decided to publish my views. The ability for me to do that is rather unique. I am reasonably well branded, many people listen to me, I have tools, I have training, I have been a success at obtaining rankings, I frequently speak at industry sessions, and I am white hat. So how can I help? I am publishing my personal Code of Conduct as a broad set of policies along with a formal certification ONLY for my own proprietary tools and methodologies, not for an industry. I support this certification with regular and spot audits of the voluntary participants, frequent training and re-training, and an online registration directory of who is trained and adhering to my Code of Conduct. If you do not agree with my certification policies then that is fine -- you do not need to participate in my certification programs. Really, if you don't like the idea then don't participate. If you think the items in the Code are too strong or weak, fine - I will listen, but they are my Codes. In other words, I am extending my personal Code of Conduct to a private, voluntary participation, product specific Certification program.

All certifications require a training class followed by a test, plus a commitment to adhere to the Code of Conduct. I need (out of fairness) to offer SEO's a consistent level of education if I expect consistent and reasonable understanding and implementation of the Code. Each certified analyst is registered with a unique serial number, and clients can inspect the rating of each certified member online, report a spamming practice, or request a practice review. As this is my criterion, I will initially determine if that member is violating the Code of Conduct, and then allow for correction. This is a double-elimination system with arbitration. Second offenses are usually fatal, although even here there is an opportunity for appeal. I am not certifying anyone as being anything more than trained on the use of my own tools and following my Code of Conduct. This is not an industry certification any more than getting a Microsoft training certification makes you a UNIX programmer. And, yes, Microsoft is well within their rights to manage their own personal certification program and it is well respected. As certified members prove to be leaders in this campaign they may be asked to assist in the audits, as the plan is to have a panel of at least 3 auditors such that no one person is all powerful, and even then there is liberal opportunity for appeal. I want converts, not convicts. And if I get none, I have still published and stand by my personal code -- more than most others are doing.

I truly believe that spammers can "see the light" and become converts. Sometimes they go back to their old ways, but like anyone in Spammers Anonymous, when supported with a structure, guidelines, regular meetings, training on how to beat spammers, and colleagues and friends that share the same values, then they can remain converted. I am sure that everyone that has been in the industry from the beginning has converted in some way; many used to do doorways but now do not, they tried cloaking but found it distasteful, and they are now different people. I do not want to penalize spammers if I can help them convert. Think of it as a second chance. I hope that everyone will join me in this approach because lasting success would be wonderful. If they will not convert then I cannot help them.

Most clients who use spammers do it because they do not know the difference. So it is clearly in the best interests of spammers to discourage both standards and client education. I think that in a vacuum, my SEOToolSet(tm) Certified Analyst program will prove to be a point of light among what I suspect will soon be many. (As always, copycat firms that watch me will mimic this approach within the next month or so). And I hope that regardless of source that clients will be attracted to the light and start to insist that their SEO practitioners follow the Code. It is the client community, not the SEO's or even the search engines that will cause evolution to kick in. Until someone will light the way clients will remain in the dark and will continue to hire spammers.

We will see. Although my new site is ready, I will not release it until August 1st. But it is too late to convince me this idea is stupid.

[Brad]

Bruce,

You use a lot of loaded words in your post. I do not think that everyone the suspects the motives of some of the reformers is a reactionary fossil from a frontier age. (My words, not exactly yours.) Some of those that are sceptics may be more white hat than you or the others but still wary of Trojan Horse powergrabs and I'm not so sure their concerns are so easily marginalized.

I am publishing my personal Code of Conduct as a broad set of policies along with a formal certification ONLY for my own proprietary tools and methodologies, not for an industry.

Sounds like the DRM is built in then. ;)

[bwelford]

Bruce,

That sounds a great initiative.

One thing that might help potential participants in your standards certification process would be to understand your motivations. Will there be any revenues to your organization in running this process or will this be a stand-alone non-profit or even subsidized venture? If the latter, it would seem that the Search Engines might be encouraged to provide financial support since they would also benefit from its success.

[James Colborn]

I've read all of these posts and I'm of the opinion that change hasn't been discussed enough.

I've been in the space for many years now; I learn't initially how to work with a site to optimize for search engine spiders (as there wasn't anything else around), then watched companies like GoTo grow (and laughing when someone said that a click would cost more than a pound!) and seeing search engines consolidate, the development of bid management, tracking techonolgoes etc etc... this isn't an uncommon story for most of the users in this forum but the one thing that is constant here is change.

I believe it very hard for any governing body, no matter who it made up by, to create a system of rules and regulations or code of ethics around an industry that is still in total flux. Why spend 6 months creating codes when in the time it takes to create them the industry has changed.

Arguably search is maturing but if we look at the changes in the past quarter (Yahoo! & Overture Site Match, MSN, Paid Inclusion) and the forthcoming developments of local search, contextual advertising (that you can track), MSN's search technology the space is still developing.

[BruceClay]

Brad, I agree, a great many that have posted are past beating their own drum and are really looking to advance the industry. But the posts are generally correct, there is no one organization that can say they are leading this charge, and any that do will get eaten in the forums. That is why my "first step" is to speak loudly for only myself.

bwelford, initially it is simply a stand-alone domain. I felt that the search engines would be afraid to align with any firm taking a lead since they would suffer if this was not a success. Once a success it can perhaps change, but today it is not intended to be anything but a step in the right direction. I also did not see SEMPO doing it because to succeed you would need to educate, and that competes in many ways with their own members. SEMPO is an organization (as I understand it) specifically chartered not to offer services that compete with their membership. I will charge little for the training, audits, and certifications because they are labor and resource intensive and as dmoz has proven, volunteer organizations meet with spotty results. To be a success in today's world I think it needs to be "for profit" and affordable to the point that the price does not matter.

James, you are right, which is why you cannot micro-manage the Code. It has to be able to be understood by everyone. We all understand "do not lie" without having a complete list of how people lie, and so my personal Code is written to this level.

In general, I get upset at some organizations in a position to influence the industry that do not try to convert and recruit followers. Many have a closed door policy stating that you were once evil and we know you cannot change so keep out, instead of noticing that you see "see the light" and welcome you into the organization. Our entire industry is in transition, and I think that most want to become white hat. Yes, there will be golf clubs out there that are making too much money to change, but they do not speak for the industry.

All journeys start with a step.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I like the general scope of your project, Bruce. I like the fact that you emphazise it's yours code and that people can apply for the certification. You probably have a strong enough brand to make this badge have some value - at least in the US. For new people entering this business, or people that just want better training, your program is most likely a better choice than trying to sort out the chaos of online information where, unfortunately, not everything is (to say the least) very accurate. For more experenced, or border line SEOs, you program may not be right. Thats all fine.

There is another side of all this that I haven't seen mentioned yet: Globalisation ... Is it realistic at all to make a code of conduct that will work for all nations? Just as an example I know there is a huge difference in the way US companies (have to) deal with liability versus the way Danish companies do. Some of it has to do with the fact that laws are very different, and some has to do with culture of trade and business. Something that might be considered fatal in the US could be OK in Denmark.

So let's assume we need some local adaption - at least so local SEOs can operate under such code of conduct withour braking any local regulations or set traditions. Should you abide by the code for the nation your marketing is targeting or the nation you are operating in?

For the marketing laws of Europe I know that they apply on the targeting country. So, as an example, all US companies that sell services and goods to consumers and companies in the EU have to abide to these laws. Can I ask you guys from the US, do you do that? Do you even know the laws? : (Can't say I do, not all of it - even living here!)

So, if we already have laws to protect consumers and companies from fraudulent marketing and such (at least, to some degree here in Europe) and only a few (I assume) companies outside the EU follows them, then why should the same companies follow SEO-guidelines of best conduct?

[BruceClay]

Mikkel, you are absolutely on the mark, and I have been considering this issue for months. I seek "partners" outside of the US to assist in this venture, but they need to do it at near break-even fees and to want to do it for "self actualization" reasons. While a profit-making proposition, it cannot be unaffordable to the masses. This is world-wide in scope and impact.

Interested parties should inquire within...

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Bruce, that sounds like an excelent idea. I have been working with larger groups of multinational companies and people too and it is never very easy but often very rewarding. I hope you find some good folks :)

[NFFC]

>But it is too late to convince me this idea is stupid.

I don't think anyone would call it stupid, its great marketing, I'm sure that if it's a sucess your bottom line will see the benefit.

[Jeremy_Goodrich]

100% agreed.

Why, if I could become the "czar of correct SEO" wouldn't that get me some good sound bites, too? ;)

Media coverage - Danny gets some, as does Andy Beal, etc, all - can't see why "Bruce Clay, LLC" can't get some of that there lime light too.

I guess pursuing the role of 'industry saviour' must be entertaining to some, else we wouldn't have so many folks jockeying for the role.

Me? I spend my time on work / networking, staying up on trends, etc. I'll leave the 'code of conduct' to the SE...when there's a cross the algo, "we will not ban you, etc..." then I'll cosy up to the idea of doing the same for my side of the table.

[Jill Whalen]

Good post, Bruce, and good luck with it!

Funny how exactly what you said in your post has already come true by some of the posts that followed!

:rolleyes:

[Anthony Parsons]

A formal qualification to govern online marketing by recognised training institutions worldwide would put a fix to this problem in one fowl swoop.

[bwelford]

I think the expression is "one fell swoop". See here (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fel1.htm) for more explanation.

... or was there some meaning in that word 'fowl' that went over my head?

[Jill Whalen]

Ahh you beat me to it, Barry. I was just gonna ask if that was a flying chicken...

[fathom]

I research the company, usually takes about 3 mins. to read something on their site about doorway pages and there is generally not a phone number available to contact the firm.

Maybe have a new entity that oversees the practices of SEO and works as a governing body that is readily available for consumers to contact related to poor practices.

Ethical / unethical firms and consultants, code of ethics and governing body to over see this. Hmmm…

I doubt you can even begin to address this until you address precisely what is spam and what precisely isn't.

Some pretty good “grey” area examples:

A classic: same color text on background say #ffffff on #ffffff but what about #ffffffa on #ffffff - is this spam?, or what would you define is the threshold between spam or not.

A hidden link is spam or a 1x1 pixel image link but what about 100x100 image link that has nothing written on it, or how about an image map the contains untext links. How about that rollover which has a hidden surprise for the person that finds it and clicks (A discount offer) - is this spam or an attempt to make your website sticky.

What about CSS and off screen divs (negative position) must be spam but what about formatting problems in one browser version and now off-screen. Are layered divs that are meant to appear on one page but not the other, are in sequence of mouseovers.

TP advertising pages that are gibberish with redirect rollovers must be spam but MC sells gibberish to customers for $900 without the rollover redirect - is this ok.

Sample:
Black Pearls
Even though they start with a round bead, the action of the mollusk and movement of the water usually cause the pearl to become a shape other than perfectly round.
Read more 1 : 2

Cultured Pearls
Pearl strands should be knotted to prevent them from wearing against each other and to reduce loss in case the strand breaks. Modern pearl culturing emphasizes silver or white pearls in australia and gold pearls in the philippines, myanmar and japan. (Baroque pearls are considered a separate category. The extensive and successful use of the biwa pearl mussel is reflected in the name "biwa pearls," a phrase nearly synonymous with freshwater pearls in general.
Read more 1 : 2

Discount Pearls
Color enhancement is considered the norm for both colored and white base pearls. Low-luster pearls display very little if any reflectivity.
Read more 1 : 2

Pearl Necklaces
After months or years of coating, a pearl emerges.
Read more 1 : 2


Since they are not known as an SEO this would be outside of any mandate - correct?

Solid original copy must be good but if placing it on another website (whether or not on your own) for a link is this ok to? What about 50 sites, 100 sites, 1000 sites?

Maybe it's the level of moderation used that defines spam or not.

Doorway pages are bad... that fine... (In the original concept though a doorway resided on the same website). If on a different site is this ok? What’s about gateway page, a profile page, a banner page or just a single banner, a whole website of banners (site wide links) and text links... is the size that says this is spam, the amount of use, or the intent... and if intent how can you attempt to conclude intent?

Obviously for sites that offer some mutual interest and leaders in a field it appears ok but if you sell PageRank it appears not (is there really a difference).

Networks of websites crosslinking tend to be ok (to a degree) but if you are labeled as an SEO it's not. (As sort-of stated by Google "don't link to SEOs") What about website design companies that banner themselves on every page "website design by: NOT AN SEO".

Is it the knowledge that you are well known in the industry segment that defines you as a spammer or the fact that no one knows you that makes you a spammer?

Is it the level of knowledge that aids to inducing spam or lack of?

The last point - is it the fact that you got caught or the fact that you started?

This isn't a rant, clearly - "spam” is not well enough defined "anywhere" to categorically say ethical / unethical and will certainly stop "code of ethics” in its tracks if not address first.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

A formal qualification to govern online marketing by recognised training institutions worldwide would put a fix to this problem in one fowl swoop.

It sounds easy, but I do not think it is so. Where are those training institutions recognised worldwide? I am not sure what kind of "institutions" you are referring to ... Can you explain? :)

[webmama]

This discussion has become, IMHO, the most constructive to date on what the industry (SEM/SEO/Internet Marketing) should or should not do about standards. Animated discussions, with good/evil and indifferent points of view helps move our industry to a more mature stage. I'm not saying we need these written guidelines or rules to be put in place. I am saying that discussion is a way to discovering the needs and realities of the marketplace.

I have been very clear about standards in the industry from a personal point of view - standards at this point would constrict the development and innovation of a marketplace that is still in its infancy.

From the SEMPO point of view, I do believe that simple 'best practices' or 'code of conduct' could be developed over the next 6-8 months. This would not be standards and not be tactical in any nature. They would not require education. They would not require a test. These would be at the business level. This kind of thing:

- [to steal from Bruce's thoughts] Do not deceive client or target advertising portal (destination site or whatever we call the search engines and portals and online sites]
- Disclose risks of implemented tactics to clients
- Have available references for all clients who ask
- Disclose fee structure to clients

[I include the last one because I believe that one of our (SEM companies) greatest advantages in the market is that we can tell clients EXACTLY what they are getting for their dollar]

These are JUST brainstormed ideas and not supported by SEMPO membership or the Board. They are only along the lines of what the SEMPO groups have been discussing and I wanted the feedback on the approach (not necessarily the specifics) by this esteemed group.

WebMama

[projectphp]

- [to steal from Bruce's thoughts] Do not deceive client or target advertising portal (destination site or whatever we call the search engines and portals and online sites]
- Disclose risks of implemented tactics to clients
- Have available references for all clients who ask
- Disclose fee structure to clients
Nice list!

My $0.02: what about adding some knowledge based criteria, such as:
- Don't misrepresent your knowledge
- Know what the risks are

The TP case, and the subsequent emails that have come to light, show that TP may not have not had the required knowledge to understand the risks. This makes disclosing risks irrelevant.

Anthony's "fowl swoop" is pretty accurate, IMHO, (and funnily enough fits nicely with Bruce's Pig analogy, a lot of flying going on round these parts!) Part of any code of ethics for a profession surely comes with a knowledge pre-requisite, and it is worth incorporating that in any code.

[mtnviewmayhem]

>SEMPO

Haven't heard of them much but when digging deeper I found this. Not sure how true it is but interesting nonetheless.


Sempo scandal (http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/07/scandal-rocks-sempo-board-members.html)

[rustybrick]

There is a thread on the SEMPO Scandal topic at Search Engine Watch, the thread is named Mike Grehan Knocks SEMPO (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=775).

[bethabernathy]

Seems to me that $5000 for an annual SEMPO Circle Membership should require some form of qualification in the industry. The SEMPO site is pretty nice, but it looks like anyone could become a member as long as they paid the dues. Kindof strange in terms of ethics. :cool:

[rustybrick]

"SEMPO is an industry organization designed to promote search engine marketing in general, not an accreditation body for SEM firms. Membership in SEMPO is not a guarantee of a particular firm's capabilities, nor does it signify industry approval or disapproval of their practices."

[bethabernathy]

I'd like to be a member and get my links on the home page, but I have client bills quite over due. Would someone like to loan me the money to join. I think it could raise my PR?

http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/images/sempopr.gif

:D

[seobook]

I'd like to be a member and get my links on the home page, but I have client bills quite over due. Would someone like to loan me the money to join. I think it could raise my PR?

I have bought sidewide perminant pagarank 7 links for 2% of what they are charging for that. not that I was just buying pagerank, but my point is that if you want to buy pagerank (even on topic pagerank) you can get it much cheaper than what they are charging.

only in the past few months has that site really start to showed pagerank. before that I was like one of a dozen or so people linking to it for like 8 months.

[bethabernathy]

I disagree. Whether it is Bruce Clay or some organized division, I think a governing body is first, certification is 2nd. The thing that has been so great about SEW is that the group has grown in the right way. I remember years ago emailing Danny S. about something and he got back to me. The Sempo deal is just not working. The funds are there but the people lack investing into just plain and simple bare bones customer service.

[seobook]

I think client education is more important than certification.

There are way too many intangibles to determine the quality of an SEO by any type of test.

Even if you teach a person about SEO and they have the skill to be great it still does not mean that they will work hard and do a good job.

search engine marketing is too broad of a field to have a fee driven central body that can keep up any sort of quality standards.

when I drive down the road I know it is illegal to exceed the speed limit and yet I do. I do not remember who wrote it (it was someone from this forum) but SEO does not even have posted speed limits. There are no tangible boundaries.


Also as far as the concept of governing body I think "beurocratic system with lots of fat." I am sure there are a good number of SEO firms making millions of dollars per year, but I doubt most of them will want to pay to take a test to be listed on a page that has a Bruce Clay ad right next to it anyway.

Worse yet most SEOs are small guys (as Mike Grehan pointed out) and I can do a ton with $750. Many SEO firms can not support giving up the $750.

The trick is the SEO finding a functional business model. Off the start many people underprice or misprice their SEO services and $750 seems like a ton. By the time people learn enough to have a business model that supports them paying $750 for some sort of accredidation they likely are smart enough to know just how far that money can go elsewhere (for example improving their search rankings).

For that kind of money you can pick up 20 - 30 inbound links from 20 - 30 different sites and perhaps even write a press release if you have something worth promoting.

[bethabernathy]

Very well put. Thank you. I appreciate your post. It makes good sense.

[fathom]

I think client education is more important than certification.

There are way too many intangibles to determine the quality of an SEO by any type of test.

Even if you teach a person about SEO and they have the skill to be great it still does not mean that they will work hard and do a good job.

search engine marketing is too broad of a field to have a fee driven central body that can keep up any sort of quality standards.

when I drive down the road I know it is illegal to exceed the speed limit and yet I do. I do not remember who wrote it (it was someone from this forum) but SEO does not even have posted speed limits. There are no tangible boundaries.


Also as far as the concept of governing body I think "beurocratic system with lots of fat." I am sure there are a good number of SEO firms making millions of dollars per year, but I doubt most of them will want to pay to take a test to be listed on a page that has a Bruce Clay ad right next to it anyway.

Worse yet most SEOs are small guys (as Mike Grehan pointed out) and I can do a ton with $750. Many SEO firms can not support giving up the $750.

The trick is the SEO finding a functional business model. Off the start many people underprice or misprice their SEO services and $750 seems like a ton. By the time people learn enough to have a business model that supports them paying $750 for some sort of accredidation they likely are smart enough to know just how far that money can go elsewhere (for example improving their search rankings).

For that kind of money you can pick up 20 - 30 inbound links from 20 - 30 different sites and perhaps even write a press release if you have something worth promoting.

Some fair and good points but I tend to think that it's a very narrow or short-term vision.

In "all mainstream professions" accreditation is not only wise it is manditory.

In fact - there are few actual accredited courses you can take that:

1. cost less than $1000, and

2. allow an uncapped salary.

It's also worth noting that "if" the small guy is in fact not making much, it tends to be align to:

1. not skilled, thus

2. not producing/doing much (for clients), thus

3. not very marketable, thus

4. not attracting clients, thus

5. not appreciating the value in supply and demand which controls costs thus

6. prices

Take your pick

Additionally, educating the public is only half the battle as it is great to be able to recognize a scam artist from the real deal, but without some quality control on the "professional side" > "demand" out performs "supply"... and that is where we are now.

In any case "if" coursing is too expensive and many potential clients think "SEO is too expensive" as well maybe they (small SEOs) need lessons.

I love the last line...

We expect that the vocal minority will attack this Code of Conduct. Again, we challenge them to do better.

[seobook]

Some fair and good points but I tend to think that it's a very narrow or short-term vision.

In "all mainstream professions" accreditation is not only wise it is manditory.
In fact - there are few actual accredited courses you can take that:

1. cost less than $1000, and
2. allow an uncapped salary.
yup, but most of those accredited courses are not owned, operated by, and advertising one of your competitors.

if the goal is to teach thats great. but the early ads suggest just how much self promotion of the owner is a part of that concept. even if you pass it or whatever it has no value unless you link back to the source, where of course Bruce has ads running for himself. no self respecting SEO firm will pay tons of money to advertise for another SEO firm.


It's also worth noting that "if" the small guy is in fact not making much, it tends to be align to:

1. not skilled, thus
2. not producing/doing much (for clients), thus
3. not very marketable, thus
4. not attracting clients, thus
5. not appreciating the value in supply and demand which controls costs thus
6. prices

Take your pick

I am going to speak from personal experience here. I am good at SEO but am horrible at business. This is why I do not like working for too many other people.

When I first started out the second site I worked for was an adult toy website. I only charged him $300. Within 2 months he was ranking #1 for his primary keyword.

It would have helped if I would have realized more of the value structure, but somebody can print up a document like that and not charge me $750 to read it.

Most of the best SEO learning that needs to happen comes from experience anyway. Reading it is not the same as doing it.

As I learned more about SEO stuff over time I told that kid and he continues to put minimal effort into promoting his site and still ranks at #1 or #2 in G & Y! for his primary keywords.

Now that I know a bit more about SEO perhaps I could write a page offering tips and suggestions on how to find a reasonable fee schedule for new SEOs. Its not that hard after you have some experience.

Additionally, educating the public is only half the battle as it is great to be able to recognize a scam artist from the real deal, but without some quality control on the "professional side" > "demand" out performs "supply"... and that is where we are now.

In any case "if" coursing is too expensive and many potential clients think "SEO is too expensive" as well maybe they (small SEOs) need lessons.

I love the last line...
The web works well because there are not many artificial barriers to success.

I bought a domain $8. I could use blogging software from blogger free. Buy a decent logo $50 - $100. Make minor site adjustments to have it match the logo $100 - $200.

The only reason I started learning SEO stuff is because since I knew nothing about the web and it seemed like SEO was somewhat of a prerequisite to do well with some other stuff it seemed like SEO was a good place to start.

If Bruce really wanted to promote a universal standard or accredidation those ads on the side of the page would have been promoting the value offered by the accredidation idea, NOT BRUCE CLAY SERVICES.

Sure accredidation of some sort might be a good idea but throwing self promotion in the mix in my opinion is only a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[fathom]

I'll attempt to address these in the spirit of the thread

yup, but most of those accredited courses are not owned, operated by, and advertising one of your competitors.

if the goal is to teach thats great. but the early ads suggest just how much self promotion of the owner is a part of that concept. even if you pass it or whatever it has no value unless you link back to the source, where of course Bruce has ads running for himself. no self respecting SEO firm will pay tons of money to advertise for another SEO firm.

Well Yahoo use Google for years... and SEOInc was a couple of guys that started with Robin Noble's SEO Course and WPG and also actively promoted that fact for quite a while. There "is" a transference here and not just money changing hands.

Perception of being associated with "industry leaders" cannot be so easily discounted as "purely self promoting" on the offering company's side.

Additionally, Bruce can also look at it a creating a superior competitor - providing insight into what they current don't know or do. In that -- it's better for the client, better for the industry, and at a mere $750 it could well induce a major return on the investment.

The web works well because there are not many artificial barriers to success.

I bought a domain $8. I could use blogging software from blogger free. Buy a decent logo $50 - $100. Make minor site adjustments to have it match the logo $100 - $200.

The only reason I started learning SEO stuff is because since I knew nothing about the web and it seemed like SEO was somewhat of a prerequisite to do well with some other stuff it seemed like SEO was a good place to start.

If Bruce really wanted to promote a universal standard or accredidation those ads on the side of the page would have been promoting the value offered by the accredidation idea, NOT BRUCE CLAY SERVICES.

Sure accredidation of some sort might be a good idea but throwing self promotion in the mix in my opinion is only a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

I doubt Bruce was asking for peer review because he want you to take the course. Tell him how you would make it better. Unfortuately, since it will likely be on his own website, I doubt the "self promotion" thing is really good constructive feedback.

There is alot to actually being "accredited" but it does become easier if in fact you have a course to begin with.

Also note: Microsoft certification is in fact self promotion in the same manner... and there are substantial benefits that come with that promotion.

SEO is still young and demand for "quality" services is far more about perspection in getting "face value" to potential clients. If this happens to be because of a course provided by a perceived industry leader, with a good grasp of "code of content" it is likely far more valuable than a domain name, blog, etc.

What you do with it after-the-fact is how you "set yourself apart".

[seobook]

Well Yahoo use Google for years... and SEOInc was a couple of guys that started with Robin Noble's SEO Course and WPG and also actively promoted that fact for quite a while. There "is" a transference here and not just money changing hands.

I guess I am somewhat newer to SEO than most people here and I never looked at it that way.


Perception of being associated with "industry leaders" cannot be so easily discounted as "purely self promoting" on the offering company's side.

Additionally, Bruce can also look at it a creating a superior competitor - providing insight into what they current don't know or do. In that -- it's better for the client, better for the industry, and at a mere $750 it could well induce a major return on the investment.

It can be an excellent place to start for many people. I am not sure that it can necissarily be considered an industry wide solution. My comments are more about the scalability.

I doubt Bruce was asking for peer review because he want you to take the course. Tell him how you would make it better. Unfortuately, since it will likely be on his own website, I doubt the "self promotion" thing is really good constructive feedback.

It is not that it was on his SEO toolset site that I thought was a bad thing. I thought the Bruce Clay professional SEO ads on that site were not constructive toward the promotion of that particular site as a standard.

There is alot to actually being "accredited" but it does become easier if in fact you have a course to begin with.
And I understand that there should be associated costs. And I do not think $750 is too much of a cost, just that it does not scale well to some areas of the world, etc.

Also note: Microsoft certification is in fact self promotion in the same manner... and there are substantial benefits that come with that promotion.
There are, but much of the best software is and will continue to come from the open source community. Look how far the Mozilla Project has came and MicroSoft has decided to integrate IE into their OS.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Technology/03TechTECH02080104.htm

SEO is still young and demand for "quality" services is far more about perspection in getting "face value" to potential clients. If this happens to be because of a course provided by a perceived industry leader, with a good grasp of "code of content" it is likely far more valuable than a domain name, blog, etc.
Sure a large part of the demand for "quality" services is shunned by a lack of credibility in the industry. And perhaps what Bruce is offering will help solve part of that problem as will other sites offering courses.

The single biggest problem in the industry though is the general ignorance of the consumer. I would say most people buying SEO services might be good to spend money on something like Bruce's course or what search engine college or other future courses may offer.

What you do with it after-the-fact is how you "set yourself apart".
True. The web is a fairly even playing field if you chose to work hard and continually learn.

[Matt B]

I did some checking, as there was a comment made about the advertising world having standards - as no one tells them how to make a commercial. Which sounds good, and somewhat logical, however, there are a fair amount of guidelines that have to be followed.

The difference in the advertising world is that there are network guidelines, and the networks are the ones that make the money from the advertisers, just as the search engine business in our world. However, in the advertising world, if you cross the network guidelines, the FCC and the FTC are there to enforce fines, penalties and possibly legal judgements. In our world, only the search engines enforce their own rules.

From a regulatory stance, the International Advertising Association subscribes to "voluntary self-regulation". http://www.iaaglobal.org/selfRegulation.asp?articleID=75&subsiteID=2&openNav=37

However, beyond the self regulation, there is the third party enforcement of certain aspects of advertising, which is the resource of The National Advertising Review Board and the Better Business Bereau. http://www.bbb.org/membership/codeofad.asp.

This code deals with unfair advertising practices, such as competitive claims, comparison models, bait and switch, the definition of the word "free", rebates and contests. All of which are advertising techniques, but are regulated because of past abuse which puts consumers at risk by misinformation.

[dannysullivan]

NOTE: I've split the discussion of Bruce Clay's tools as they related to certification over here: Bruce Clay Tools & Certification (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1075).

[excell]

Thanks Danny - splitting that off caused me to go back to the original question this thread is trying to address. The thread topic is "An SEM Code of Conduct" - and granted it started off with what SEMPRO can, should, could etc. Is that the way the thread is intended to go.

Seems to me it is all about can SEMPRO do this or that or can BC do this or that.. when
Why cannot either or anyone go higher than this???

Instead of being so - aligned with this or that group or whatever, why cannot there something more simplistic. Something that doesn't require huge fees or membership to a "club"...

WAIM & IWA come to mind as organisations that are industry based - yet are not (on the surface) biased.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought I would mention some longer standing similar type organisations.

[eitemiller]

Back to the main topic of this thread Do we need an SEM Code of conduct? If so, what should be included?

Sure - if someone doesn't start something, it will only be a matter of time until some governing body decides that they have to create one for us.

Personally - being new to SEO - I commend anyone who decides to take the time and come up with something. It's a start. You have to start somewhere.

[NFFC]

> it will only be a matter of time until some governing body

And what governing body whould that be?

[eitemiller]

And what governing body whould that be?

Can't tell you because it doesn't exsit yet - they didn't let Geenie show her belly-button on tv back in the day - now we have the FCC that regulates tv. You don't think some government somewhere is going to attempt step in?

It won't be this year, probably not next. But it will come.

[NFFC]

>now we have the FCC that regulates tv

They do? Where?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

As a co-founder of WAIM I can tell you it's stone dead - no reason to focus too much on that now, in my oppinion. Let's keep that for the history interested :)

[bwelford]

Since we seem to be doing so well in defining what constitutes Good Conduct, we should think about tackling some of the more thorny issues. What about "No sex please, we're SEO's (http://blog.cre8asite.net/bwelford/index.php?id=P156)".