What is Ethical SEO?

[sysops]

RedEvo's post on the effectiveness of webspam (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/im-getting-more-worried-about-the-effectiveness-of-webspam#jtc119735) ends with the line "Business people are not interested in the ethics and whys and wherefores, they just want results.". This got me thinking, and having already had two coffees this morning I couldn't help but share.

As someone who spends tens of thousands of pounds on seo each year (and often wonders whether this is a good move), I frequently come across the mantra "we only do ethical seo in this agency".

On the face of it, this is a good thing. After all, who would want to work with an agency that does anything unethical? Certainly not me. So it's great when your seo company tell you that they do ethical seo. They are the good guys, not the cowboys. It gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, and makes you glad you chose them.

The concept of ethics is a very useful one. As people, we use our moral judgement to differentiate between right and wrong. If you get a group of people together, and tell them to develop a code of ethics, they will come up with lots of very reasonable, almost self-evident rules. Don't steal, don't kill, help your fellow man etc.

But I believe that this concept has been hijacked and mis-used in the context of seo.

We are told by the wise seo high-priests that ethical seo means doing what Google says is the right thing. Not creating links unnaturally, never ever buying links, only putting content on the page for people, not for bots, etc. But what makes these behaviours 'unethical' in the first place? Who has defined this seo code of ethics?

Who is harmed when someone behaves in an 'unethical way' (in seo)?

It seems to me that the whole concept of ethical seo is really a plea - a plea from the search engines, "don't manipulate our algorithm, it's not that smart".

So next time your seo tells you that they only do 'ethical seo', stop for a minute and ask what that means, where those 'ethics' come from.

If there are any pragmatic seos out there who understand that businesses need results, and who know how to achieve these results, do get in touch.

[UKSBD]

There is no such thing as ethical SEO unless you have a budget to employ creative marketing agencies, journalists, article writers, etc. or are an authority in the niche you operate in.

For 99% of businesses this doesn't get the ROI or the business owner isn't prepared to lay down the foundations for something that might pay back in the future.

[RedEvo]

Surely the answer is to explain to clients what ethical SEO means. I don't believe it means following Google's guidelines, at least this isn't the only meaning. I think it means acting fairly and playing by the rules. The rules were laid out by Sir Tim Berners-Lee when he created a system of cross linking valuable information, Google jumped on the back of that, they didn't invent it.

If you look at their paper entitled The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine (http://www7.scu.edu.au/1921/com1921.htm) they show how they recognised the importance of linking for filtering and refining results. As a side note did I ever mention I presented a paper (http://www7.scu.edu.au/00/index.htm) at this same conference :)

Anyway, it's a simple offering to clients. One way is fair, often slow and sometimes won't work. The other is a cheat, in the purest sense, but will be quicker and will almost certainly work. However, in the unlikely event you get caught cheating Google will clobber you and getting your site back into the index will be a struggle.

Many businesses will just want results and will be happy to take the risk, you can even show them how others are already cheating to settle their minds. Anyway, judging by the levels of SPAM in the index how risky is cheating anyway.

If business owners are educated, even just at a high level, it's their decision and not the SEO's. The SEO then has to decide if they want to take the project based on the client's needs, attitudes to risk and desire to succeed at any (ethical) price.

Buying influence isn't ethical but it happens in every walk of life. When an SEO suggests they are ethical they are saying they won't buy influence they will only earn it. I think clients can get this and make a judgement call.

d

[sysops]

The rules were laid out by Sir Tim Berners-Lee when he created a system of cross linking valuable information, Google jumped on the back of that, they didn't invent it.

I don't think those rules ever said anything about not buying links.


Anyway, it's a simple offering to clients. One way is fair, often slow and sometimes won't work. The other is a cheat, in the purest sense, but will be quicker and will almost certainly work.

But this is exactly my point - what makes one way 'fair' and the other 'a cheat'? Where does this definition come from?



However, in the unlikely event you get caught cheating Google will clobber you and getting your site back into the index will be a struggle.

This really is a myth though, isn't it. Despite asking dozens of times, no one has been able to point to an example of a site getting clobbered. It just doesn't happen.

I'm still interested in this 'cheating', and what makes it 'cheating'.

[directmarketingadvice]

Who is harmed when someone behaves in an 'unethical way' (in seo)?

The people you push down the page?

I agree with you and Red Evo, I think people have attached some sort of ethical argument to the difference between "white hat" and "black hat" SEO. And I don't think it makes any sense.

Much of SEO (most link building) is about artificially manipulating your rankings by taking advantage of the weaknesses in Google's algo.

You do things to make your like look like more of an authority than it actually is (which is a lot less time consuming than actually becoming an authority).

And how far you push the envelope to make that happen isn't a question of ethics, it's a question of how much risk you're willing to take.

(And, also, having a good idea where the lines are drawn.)

Just my 2p,

Steve

[RedEvo]

You can find recent examples of site's being banned by searching. Here's one (http://www.google.co.uk/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6518d3d6f28da2a8&hl=en).

When I talk about cheating I'm talking about it in the purest sense. Most people would understand that buying influence is cheating wouldn't they? If I buy a link for a client in an attempt to suggest to the search engines that my clients site is a good site I'm buying influence and that's cheating.

This truth takes no cognisance of what my clients competitors are doing, that is to say it ignores the argument that it's not cheating if every body else is doing it, but simply considers the act in isolation in its purest form. It's cheating.

d

[sysops]

The people you push down the page?


But those same people are equally 'harmed' if I push them down the page using 'ethical seo', or indeed if I outbid them on PPC, or have a better crafted ad than them.


Much of SEO (most link building) is about artificially manipulating your rankings by taking advantage of the weaknesses in Google's algo.

I agree, but I'd go further and say that 'artificially manipulating' suggests that the 'natural' rankings are somehow correct - they are not, they are a best-effort result.

[sysops]

When I talk about cheating I'm talking about it in the purest sense. Most people would understand that buying influence is cheating wouldn't they?


That would make almost all marketing activities 'cheating', no?

[directmarketingadvice]

But those same people are equally 'harmed' if I push them down the page using 'ethical seo'

But, if you could have done it "ethically", wouldn't you have?

It's a moot point, as neither of us believe in "the ethics of SEO". It's more like "if there were ethics in SEO, then these are the people who would be harmed by unethical behaviour..."

I agree, but I'd go further and say that 'artificially manipulating' suggests that the 'natural' rankings are somehow correct - they are not, they are a best-effort result.

Fair point.

To me, the SERPS is a game that Google set up, and the people who play that game, play it to their advantage.

And, unless someone is doing "bad things" (like hi-jacking people's sites with i-frames), it's pretty much all within the game.

(And that includes things like buying links.)

Steve

[RedEvo]

Much of SEO (most link building) is about artificially manipulating your rankings by taking advantage of the weaknesses in Google's algo.

This would be true if people linked to genuinely useful information and used the web in its purest form. However, people don't use the web in the way it was intended to be used, for information sharing, but this has to be squared with the way the web, or at least Google, operates.

What I'm saying is Google relies on links to differentiate but most web users are too lazy to link to things, they are more likely to send an email to their friends with a link in it than put a link on a site somewhere. You could argue social link sharing platforms make it easy but these have now been spammed beyond any usefulness IMHO.

This leaves SEO's with a dilemma. Do they simply create great content and 'hope' people link to it or do they actively seek links to what they believe is link worthy content.

Which brings us nicely onto content. Poor content won't attract links from credible resources. Poor content relies on low quality links or paid links. Paid links can send a message to Google that a page is in fact a quality resource even though it isn't. The result of this is a poor user experience and potentially pushes quality content off people's radar. This is happening all over the index.

As an SEO I will always start with content and advise clients that producing nothing of value narrows their options. Link spammers/buyers/cheats don't have this issue, they can secure links to any old rubbish.


d

[RedEvo]

That would make almost all marketing activities 'cheating', no?

No. Most people understand that a TV advert that says "We make the best burgers..." has been bought and paid for by the people who make the burgers. Same goes for most other types of marketing, it's clear the "message" is being paid for. It's also the case that marketing activity in the UK is closely monitored to stop marketeers taking advantage of people (not always very well I'll concede).

Search results are different. I think most people believe search results are meritocratic, this is why I often hear people say they won't click the sponsored results because they know they are adverts.

d

[dots and spots Jeff]

When I talk about cheating I'm talking about it in the purest sense. Most people would understand that buying influence is cheating wouldn't they? If I buy a link for a client in an attempt to suggest to the search engines that my clients site is a good site I'm buying influence and that's cheating.


d

Wind the clock back 30 years to a world BG (Before Google!)

I buy a full page ad in a newspaper - perhaps as part of the deal I get some favourable editorial.

Is that cheating? Am I buying influence?

Plus ca change!?

Interesting thread - thanks

Jeff

[sysops]

Search results are different. I think most people believe search results are meritocratic, this is why I often hear people say they won't click the sponsored results because they know they are adverts.


This seems to go back to the idea that 'natural' SERPs are somehow accurate and good, and that by seeking to increase your ranking you are 'manipulating' these 'correct' SERPs.

[RedEvo]

Wind the clock back 30 years to a world BG (Before Google!)

I buy a full page ad in a newspaper - perhaps as part of the deal I get some favourable editorial.

Is that cheating? Am I buying influence?

Plus ca change!?

Interesting thread - thanks

Jeff

No. It's clearly an advert and the editorial is almost certainly adjacent to it so most people will recognise this. IMHO search results are very different.

d

[sysops]

IMHO search results are very different.




I wonder what percentage of non-tech people do know what PPC results are? I've certainly come across many who don't.

[RedEvo]

This seems to go back to the idea that 'natural' SERPs are somehow accurate and good, and that by seeking to increase your ranking you are 'manipulating' these 'correct' SERPs.

No, we all know SERP's are being manipulated but does the 'man in the street'? Not really, not yet.

At the risk of repeating myself. Seeking links is required because (IMHO) people rarely link of their own volition and this jars with the simple fact that Google's algo is link based.

d

[RedEvo]

I wonder what percentage of non-tech people do know what PPC results are? I've certainly come across many who don't.

I think that's a fair point. I think there are also people who think they will be charged if they click them :)

d

[Clinton]

What I'm saying is Google relies on links to differentiate ...
More fool them.

Their much publicised reliance on citations is the cause of 99% of so called "unethical" SEO.

If they weren't so big, and weren't so reliant on links for so long, there'd be a fraction of the forum, blog and other spamming, link farms, cooperative linking schemes, reciprocal linking programs and other nonsense.

[sirearl]

Quick word on ethics .If you are an SEO and you have ethics then maybe a different occupation may be needed.

Talk of cheating is ridiculous,this is business and sometimes big business money is the aim for every business owner I have ever met.

All I will say is if you don't know when you have pushed the envelope to far don't do it,nothing is worth getting a viable site banned or kicked down the rankings.

P.S one could say any form of advertising is cheating or manipulating.Certainly no ethics in that area.

Earl

[UKSBD]

As long as the site owner knows (and knows the consequensies) what is being done is against the google guidelines then it is fair enough.

What I class as Unethical is when the SEO gambles with someome elses site/livelyhood without the owner knowing.

[sirearl]

What I class as Unethical is when the SEO gambles with someome elses site/livelyhood without the owner knowing.

Disagree that is someone who does not know what they are doing.

Earl

[UKSBD]

doing something against the google guidelines is a form of gambling no matter how much you know.

It should always be up to the owner if they are prepared to go against the google guidelines no matter how good the SEO is.

[sirearl]

It should always be up to the owner if they are prepared to go against the google guidelines no matter how good the SEO is.

So you would be prepared to let the final decision rest with someone who probably has not got a clue whats going on.?:p:)

"listen er mate if I do something dodgy you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams,but there is a small risk you might go skint":D

Earl

[UKSBD]

So you would be prepared to let the final decision rest with someone who probably has not got a clue whats going on.?:p:)

"listen er mate if I do something dodgy you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams,but there is a small risk you might go skint":D

Earl


No, I would yell them to go and read the guidelines, tell them if they stick to them it would be a long process, tell them if they bend them a bit everything will be a lot easier, but the final desicion is always theirs.

[Ali-v-8]

a good seo is like a flexible reed in the wind.
Some times you bend but not break

[sirearl]

a good seo is like a flexible reed in the wind.
Some times you bend but not break


Well I have heard of poetic license.

But thats pushing it a tad.:D:p:)

Earl

[RedEvo]

More fool them.

How you would automatically differentiate between sites?

d

[sirearl]

I think that's a fair point. I think there are also people who think they will be charged if they click them :)

d

Interesting point,never considered that aspect.

But it certainly is the case with many telephone numbers.

Maybe Google should make it clear to the public that no cost is incurred on there part.?

Earl

[RedEvo]

Common sense should prevail, I mean HOW would they be charged, but non the less I know some think there is some way they could be :)

d

[directmarketingadvice]

It should always be up to the owner if they are prepared to go against the google guidelines no matter how good the SEO is.

You're talking about a decision most clients woudn't have the ability to make intelligently.

Steve

[RedEvo]

You're talking about a decision most clients woudn't have the ability to make intelligently.

Steve

But it's not a complex thing to understand.

"We can optimise your site in accordance with Google's guidelines or we can break the rules. If we break the rules things will happen quicker. If we get caught breaking the rules your site may be removed from Google's index."

This could be qualified with some examples including showing them how their competitors are breaking the rules.

I fail to see how this is a difficult thing to comprehend. Most people understand the concept of rules and the benefits and consequences of breaking them.

Here's an analogy you could use.

Assume you are driving from Aberdeen to Manchester. You can drive within the speed limit, it will take you 6 hours but all things being equal you will arrive safe and sound.

You could however go like the clappers, you'll get there in 4 hours but if you get caught you'll probably lose your license :)

Full of holes I know but close enough to get the point across.

Taking it further you could suggest they stick to the speed limit in built up areas and in places where the motorway passes through busy areas, like Glasgow, then stick their toe down along the M74 where it's just them and a few sheep.

OK, I'll stop now :D

d

[Clinton]

How you would automatically differentiate between sites?

d
RedEvo, I'm not being funny, but I don't have billions of dollars and most of the world's top PhDs. It's not my problem.

Using links as a measure of a page's relevance for a keyword works when you're a small company catering for a tiny fraction of the world's searches done by a hard core group of geeks . As G grew bigger and bigger it was inevitable that it became more attractive to rank well in their SERPS and to do whatever it took to appease their algo. In those early days, rather than cooperating with webmasters and exploring other ways of ranking sites, they stuck to their link based methods, stuck their heads in the sand and were very anti-SEO. They started losing the SEO battle. Webmasters were gaming the system in a multitude of different ways. Goog then dumped the PR toolbar (quietly converted it to a Public Relations toolbar ;)), appointed a tsar called Cutts to, apparently, help webmasters rank better (yeah, right), and claim they are now using 200 different inputs. So problem solved then, isn't it?

As with any business, if you're very reliant on a shaky and easily manipulated foundation, your business model is flawed. It was Google's responsibility to develop alternate ways of ranking pages - they've got the billions of dollars and the reputation for innovation. If they are still excessively reliant on links, then go forth and link your asses off is what I'd say.

[UKSBD]

You're talking about a decision most clients woudn't have the ability to make intelligently.

Steve


They don't have to be intelligent to read the quality guidelines of the webmaster guidelines, and should always be given the choice of whether they want to adhere to them or not.

We all know it is about links and we all know it is against the guidelines to manipulate the serps by obtaining links.

Are you really saying that shouldn't be pointed out to the owner of the site?

[directmarketingadvice]

But it's not a complex thing to understand.

I don't agree.

It's not black and white as your own wording shows:

"We can optimise your site in accordance with Google's guidelines or we can break the rules. If we break the rules things will happen quicker. If we get caught breaking the rules your site may be removed from Google's index."

You're asking someone to choose whether to make a bet where the odds are unknown. No-one can make such a bet intelligently.

Steve

[RedEvo]

RedEvo, I'm not being funny, but I don't have billions of dollars and most of the world's top PhDs. It's not my problem.

There is no way that I can see other than the citations route. The problem they have to solve is how to ensure they only count credible citations and I believe they are throwing PhD's and $$$ at the problem but it's a tough nut to crack.

Of course they already use other metrics and always have, these can be bolstered but are also open to abuse. It's hard to imagine any system they could create that wouldn't be open to manipulation.

d

[directmarketingadvice]

They don't have to be intelligent to read the quality guidelines of the webmaster guidelines

No, they don't.

But reading the webmaster guidelines isn't going to tell them what they need to know about the risk and reward.

Steve

[RedEvo]

I don't agree.

It's not black and white as your own wording shows:



You're asking someone to choose whether to make a bet where the odds are unknown. No-one can make such a bet intelligently.

Steve

I simply don't see where you are coming from. Follow guidelines v don't follow guidelines. Let's agree to disagree on this one.

d

[directmarketingadvice]

I simply don't see where you are coming from.

It's fairly simple: unless you give them an estimated likelihood of being kicked out of google and a clear explanation of how much faster they'd get rankings or how much higher they'd be on the page, you're not giving them the information needed to make that decision.

There's a big difference between

"there's a 0.1% chance you could get banned by google, but you'll make an estimated £50,000 more profit"

and

"there's a 20% chance you could get banned by google, but you'll get the same rankings 2 weeks sooner."

Or do you guys think the differences between these two scenarios wouldn't influence the client's decision?

Steve

[RedEvo]

To me it's black and white. You break the rules or abide by them. There are no degrees of breaking rules, it's binary.

I take your point re the chances of being caught but an SEO would be on a hiding to nothing suggesting %ages. I'd happily give an opinion but that's all it would be.

d

[sysops]

To me it's black and white. You break the rules or abide by them. There are no degrees of breaking rules, it's binary.


You're calling the guidelines rules now?

[RedEvo]

You're calling the guidelines rules now?

Yup, sure am. But I'm not suggesting you have to follow them :)

d

[Clinton]

There is no way that I can see other than the citations route. The problem they have to solve is how to ensure they only count credible citations and I believe they are throwing PhD's and $$$ at the problem but it's a tough nut to crack.

Of course they already use other metrics and always have, these can be bolstered but are also open to abuse. It's hard to imagine any system they could create that wouldn't be open to manipulation.

d

If they really can't find an alternate way to maintain the quality of their results then they can go the way of any other business that fails to innovate. And good riddance to all bad businesses.

Why are we treating Google on par with, say, tackling global warming? Why does the world have to find an alternative to Page Rank? Goog is just a business and therefore completely dispensible.

[sysops]

Why are we treating Google on par with, say, tackling global warming?

???

Because one exists and the other is made up?

[RedEvo]

If they really can't find an alternate way to maintain the quality of their results then they can go the way of any other business that fails to innovate. And good riddance to all bad businesses.

Why are we treating Google on par with, say, tackling global warming? Why does the world have to find an alternative to Page Rank? Goog is just a business and therefore completely dispensible.

You think they are not innovating? How do you think the SERP's would look without the many innovations Google have made with respect to cleaning up their index?

It's far from perfect but could be a lot worse and I for one believe they will continue to innovate and find ways of combating spam.

Perhaps they'll stop being so lenient and ere on the side of caution, ie if they think something *might* be suss they treat is as spam. Some innocents will fall but there's nothing new there ;)

d

[Clinton]

Because one exists and the other is made up?You're misinformed. Global warming isn't made up - it's the causes of global warming and the attribution to human activity that's in dispute. Global waming is not made up, it's just blown out of proportion...a bit like the importance of a certain search engine to humanity / the continued survival of our species.

You think they are not innovating?I even went to the trouble of bolding the "if" ;)

They are innovating, time will tell via their future market share whether they've innovated enough. If they can innovate their way out of a problem they created themselves then they deserve to survive. But we don't owe it to them to help. It's not our problem. Anyone whose business relies on Google traffic has a duty to the business to exploit every flaw in the algo - without breaking any law - to the maximum extent possible. And take the gain (or pain) that follows.

[Buck]

Ethical seo can be defined as white hat seo, should not be go against of google seo rules. in other words all seo process which is not consist any black hat and gray hat seo, this would be ethical seo.