The Return of Design site (which is run by the folks from Forty Media, who'd prefer to be linked to with the anchor text "phoenix web design") have an interesting post about what they consider ethical and unethical in the SEO business. There's a few inherent problems that underscore the massive distrust and general ignorance that enshrouds our industry. Excerpts include:
- Search engine optimization: Ensuring that your code and content is appropriately organized and easy for search engines to interpret accurately.
- Search engine exaggeration: Reinforcing your desired keywords through frequent repetition, hidden keywords, etc.
- Search engine deception: Creating content, pages, etc., that aren’t intended for human consumption, but are instead designed only to pull in search engine traffic.
Obviously, inaccuracies prevail in these characterizations - all three are largely relics of a bygone era as search engines have evolved and those conducting optimization have as well. But, it's not only the antiquated viewpoints that have me concerned. This in particular is fairly nonsensical:
(in reference to Search Engine Exaggeration)... This is where things start to get a bit shady. Once you realize how search engines work, there’s a great temptation to give them what they want by pumping up the keywords in your text, adding hidden keywords on your pages, etc.
While I have no doubt that there are folks who consider this an SEO "tactic", what it makes clear is how little the writers understand the industry, although I can't entirely blame them for this. Unless you keep up to date with SES/WMW conferences and read the popular SEO/M blogs, you would be largely in the dark. There is very little widespread media coverage (as I noted on Saturday).
What this really brings to the forefront for me is how we as an industry consider our own tactics, and how they would be seen by outsiders. One of the biggest parts of SEO, along with creating an ethical website, is generating traffic. To me, this practice is inextricably wrapped up in SEO, even though that acronym is a sore substitute for the actual work of finding great sites to get coverage, links and mentions from.
We're really TDOs - Traffic Driving Optimizers and if search engines aren't going to be good vehicles for getting visitors, SEOs/TDOs will pursue whatever avenues neccessary - blogs, tagging, press releases, directory listings (the ones that get real traffic), industry sites, online media outlets, etc. Through these highly varied outlets, we eventually end up attracting the search engines as well, but in many cases, particularly with the advent of Google's sandbox, SE traffic is second to type-ins and referrals during the often lengthy start of a campaign.
Across the 5 major e-commerce sites we (SEOmoz) operate(s), only 3 get more than 50% of their traffic from the 3 major search engines. And only 1 gets more than 75% from them. Is it unethical to promote? Is online marketing, with the inherent knowledge that it's also drawing in search engines against the morals of the web? Where does the line get drawn, and which arbitrary body gets to draw it?
These are questions for a higher authority than me, but they're questions our clients ask themselves, and thus, inextricably tied to our operations. If ethical SEO begins and ends at site design, usability, accessibility and content - why do so many great sites get passed over by the search engines? My personal view is that on the web, as in much of life, you make your own luck. If you're unwilling to promote, link build, and linkbait through content, you're relying on some very unstable forces to make your luck for you. There will always be sites and companies who can't get the exposure they deserve without paying for it - in my opinion, holding them back because it's unethical isn't just bizarre, it's hypocrisy.
I think the industry that has grown up around the US tax code offers some insight into how the SEO business might develop.
Congress passes laws, the IRS interprets the laws to create the tax code, and the tax accountants go to work for their clients trying to beat the system. The laws/code are always a few years behind the accountants. Advisors/consultants make lots of money offering seminars, books and individual help for taxpayers. The taxpayer can choose from a smorgasboard of offerings which range from safe to illegal.
In tax accounting many/most new graduates go to work for the IRS for a few years with the plan of learning how the system actually works. Then they look for jobs with accounting firms where they can apply their knowledge to helping clients. I wonder when the first Google/Yahoo/MSN employee(s) will leave to start/promote a SEO business?
qubaquba - linkbait - posting or publishing an item/service/scoop that it's main purpose is for others to link to from their web-properties. *might* help with link popularity.
Effective is Great perspective , Rand. The suggested *theories* stands on the thick line between the trainees (not to say ignorant) and the business-savvy (not say adopters). The presented "revealed exaggeration methods" takes me back to AltaVista days. Implying conventional acts as unethical is funny, and needs a quick reality-check.
In theory – all is ideal, SEs are perfect and we all rank #1. In business - we need to evolve and fit to the environment (not that I find this very unethical), thus keep an opened eye and adjust.
Is it immoral for Microsoft to shove aggressively their default-search app (or default browser) to a new OS?
Is it dishonesty for Google to WIFI the world, know exactly where we are located and serve us compatible Ads?
Is it unethical for Nike to sell us a 89$ shoe while producing it costs 0.89c?
Is it bad for us to create Landing Pages with a main goal to convert?
Is it against principles to try and conquer+preserve a market-share?
The debate on ethical SEO and black-hat vs. white-hat are archaic and tends to bore, the *battle* won't end today. IMHO that's Business, as long as it's legally legit and no gerbils are microwaved – the choices are personal and not really to be judged or criticized.
I am far from an expert and barely a beginner but I have seen sites that use the antiquated tactics mentioned ranking far above my own sites. In fact it is something that I see consitantly in sites that out rank my own. So I am unsure that they don't work for some markets. Ethics and capitalism have very little in common. I have to agree with the final statement you make your own luck. If your company or client is recieving more potential clients via your work does it matter how. Sales people often have to cross the line or at least dance on the edge of it. If it brings in a big sale who cares a month latter. Until the law defines a line or search engines then people are going to cross it. Its not in my job description for me to define that line. If I know there is a line and I cross it than I have to be willing to pay the price if I get called on it.
As a beginner anyone care to define link baiting thats a new one for me.