Ethical Schmethical

[nuzelonde]

What is ethical?

It amuses me that this artificial distinction between supposed ethical and unethical site optimisation is made. There is no ethical
SEO or unethical SEO. There is only marketing.

Define spam: Spam is what ever the search engines decide it is.

What it was last year is not the same as what it is today. It certainly won't be the same next year. Is a cloaked page any "spammier" than a page injected with sufficient keyword density? Both are attempts to manipulate algos.

Let's face it: if the search engines allow a practice, we use it. What has this to do with ethics?

[MazY]

Hmmm. I'm getting a feeling of deja-vu....

I think you'll find a pretty lengthy and healthy debate around this subject here. (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/t1049/s.html)

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums nuzelonde! :hi:

oh my. Please don't get me started. :eek:
Is a cloaked page any "spammier" than a page injected with sufficient keyword density? Both are attempts to manipulate algos.
??

Again. Please don't get me started.

Can a browser view your "cloaked" pages? Can a browser view your keyword densified pages?

[nuzelonde]

"Can a browser view your "cloaked" pages? Can a browser view your keyword densified pages?"

Can a spider read a flash site?
Will different browsers render all pages the same?

There is much content a browser, or spider, cannot read. That doesn't mean the document lacks worthwhile content.

Will search engine A.I. ever develop past the web circa 1995?

[ihelpyou]

Yes, your points are good ones but they are all answered in the thread referenced by MazY in the second post of this thread.

There are many different kinds of cloaking. Some are legitimate like agent based cloaking where you deliver different pages according to which browser is being used. This is just fine. Another kind is IP based, where you are delivering pages according to if a spider or a browser. This is Not fine as you are "spamming".

Again, all of this has been done already in that thread. Please read it as Alan has done much research and study in this area. We don't have to rehash the same things here.

[Alan Perkins]

What is ethical?

Ethical is whatever you want it to be - very much a personal choice. But you can only make the right choices from a position of knowledge. So, is it ethical to spam a search engine? Only you can decide that for yourself (myself, I believe it isn't), and you can only decide it if you know what spam is.

Define spam: Spam is what ever the search engines decide it is. True, but that doesn't really help an SEO who is trying to work out whether a particular technique is likely to get them into trouble. Search engines do not publish an exhaustive list of what is and isn't spam. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing but it doesn't help you get your blocked site back into an index.

I've published a White Paper defining what I believe spam to be. It is here:

http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/

It contains principles for evaluating a technique to see whether a search engine is likely to classify that technique as spam, now or in the future.

[nuzelonde]

Erm....yes, I know what cloaking is but that isn't really the point I'm raising.

My point is that there are no ethical or non-ethical SEO practices.

There are various methods for manipulating search engine ranking algos in your favour. The search engines decide some of these methods are "spam" (their definition, not mine) and they add to this definition all the time. This implies that what is ethical one day is unethical the next.

Ethics has nothing to do with SEO methodology. You use a method that works.

[ihelpyou]

I agree completely.

Ethics is defined by you.

What I find unethical, you may not find it as such. Only you can define it according to your own beliefs. If you believe search engine spam (as defined by the engine) is ethical, that is your belief. I personally find it unethical.

[nuzelonde]

The problem is that search engines do not define what is "spam" and what isn't.

SE propoganda seldom reflects actual practice. Google does not permit cloaking (supposedly "unethical") yet their index is full of it (actual practice).

Ethics is a red herring. We play by the rules as defined by reverse engineering sucessful listing results and repeating the trick. If the trick continues working long enough, then we use it.

Ethical? Non-Ethical? Irrelevant.

Time for bed in my time zone. Have a good one!

[ihelpyou]

Again, I completely agree with you.

It is very irrelevant as it is only your beliefs.

Thanks for stopping by and do continue to do so! :hi:

Time for bed? sheesh. I'm just now drinking my early morning coffee. You need to set different bed times. :)

[Alan Perkins]

The problem is that search engines do not define what is "spam" and what isn't. They do a bit, but I agree they don't do it very well (particularly the "isn't" part).

SE propoganda seldom reflects actual practice. Google does not permit cloaking (supposedly "unethical") yet their index is full of it (actual practice).There are members around here who can testify that cloaking (when discovered) will get you dropped from the Google index. Just because you haven't been caught spamming, that does not mean you are not spamming or won't be caught in future. Cloaking, by (my) definition, is spamming - i.e. if you are not spamming, you are not cloaking.

Ethics is a red herring. We play by the rules as defined by reverse engineering sucessful listing results and repeating the trick. If the trick continues working long enough, then we use it. Who is "we"? Not everybody does it this way.

Ethical? Non-Ethical? Irrelevant. Ethics are highly relevant in business. I would not do business with someone who had NO ethics. I feel most comfortable dealing with businesses whose ethics match my own.

[Mel]

Originally posted by nuzelonde

Let's face it: if the search engines allow a practice, we use it. What has this to do with ethics?

Well that's one definition, but what if the search engine does not allow it and you still use it and get away with it..... Maybe.

If you are dealing with customers who pay you their money to perform a service for them, I feel you have a duty to "play by the rules" so that they don't suffer for your mistakes or tricks either now or later on.

The English language generally defines ethics as playing by the rules.

My question is - Do you then advocate not playing by the rules?

[MazY]

Originally posted by Mel

My question is - Do you then advocate not playing by the rules?

Remind me to employ you as my lawyer when I need one! :)

[ihelpyou]

LOL

[nuzelonde]

Do I advocate "not playing by the rules"?

What rules would they be, then? Arbitrary rules decided in SEO discussion boards? SE propaganda? Where is the list of rules provided by the search engines?

If you mean rules to be the terms of service, then I refer you to Googles terms of service:

"You may not use the Google Search Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales"

and...

"You may not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system without express permission in advance from Google. Note that "sending automated queries" includes, among other things:
using any software which sends queries to Google to determine how a website or webpage "ranks" on Google for various queries;"

Hmmm...."You may not use Google to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons" - sounds like site op to me. All those who "play within the rules" should stop optimising for Google now.

Ranking reports are also "against the rules" so those who play within the rules should also stop using ranking queries.

Do I play within the rules? I have no idea - I don't know what they are, the search engines won't say.

I certainly don't play by the terms of service. Do you?


PS: I notice PageRank for this board has been reset to 0. Could be PageRank just being it's usual flakey self - or perhaps some rule has been broken ;)

[ihelpyou]

The rules I play by are partially written right on each search engines web site. Google has some and so does AltaVista.

Of course they will not tell us the details because those can and do change.

Of course Google has sites in the index who are IP cloaking, and other spam techniques. They cannot possibly find them at the same time.

The point is, they can eventually find them, and then your client is out the door and without a paddle. The client then may email Google to find out what happened. Google might tell them or may not. If They find out, you are liable to that client who paid you.

I am not willing to take that risk. I prefer to sleep soundly at night knowing my clients will Never be banned. Ever.

I prefer to take care of client's ranks using zero tricks. I feel sooo good about that. Knowing I can beat the others out there at this game who take the engines to the brink with their reverse engineering schemes only to get on top, is a feeling that is hard to explain. I am clean, I stay clean. My clients enjoy very long-term success this way, knowing they have zero to worry about.

Do the SEO's out there who do what they can without being caught have this Exact peace of mind? I think not.

[ihelpyou]

PS: I notice PageRank for this board has been reset to 0. Could be PageRank just being it's usual flakey self - or perhaps some rule has been broken
What do you think? :)

It will straighten itself out as I am not worried at all about the forums.

Besides, when Google figures out that they have duplicates of each page with different Url's, they will see what happened. The site was spidered originally Not using the zlib mod_rewrite script for php to take out the question marks. Once the mod_rewrite was installed, Google then spidered and indexed all the different url's again Without the question marks. This is what I think did indeed happen in here.

Since this last update had Google tighten the screws on duplicate pages across the board, the filter got these boards in it as well.

Oh well, notin I can do about that but wait. Obviously, notin I certainly did wrong as I was shocked that Google ate up ALL pages with ? marks the first time.

[MazY]

Originally posted by nuzelonde
What rules would they be, then?

The rules/guidelines as determined by many factors.

The many, sometimes conflicting guidelines as set out by the search engines from time to time.

The guidelines that comprise of your own common sense and ethical standards.

The guidelines of raw logic alone.

There are no hard and fast "rules" to play by.

[Mel]

Hi Nuzelonde:

Well...........

You last post is an eloquent example of why this forum exists...... to discuss and exchange information among ourselves in order to determine how best to optimize sites withour offending the search engines. You seem unclear on these issues, so stick around and discuss things - who knows perhaps you may even eventually come to the conclusion that it is necessary to excecise ethics in SEO.

I asked the question concerning not playing by the rules since you seemed to feel that there are be no ethics involved in SEO.

I still do not know your stand on that issue.

[nuzelonde]

>>"I prefer to sleep soundly at night knowing my clients will Never be banned. Ever"

Hmmm......search engines aren't that fond of optimsers. I've read reliable accounts of whole client lists being banned by association.

But I'm in agreement with the general thrust of the arguments here : i.e take conservative approaches to optimisation techniques and stay beneath the radar for those clients that require it.

My point is this has *nothing* to do with ethics. SEO techniques are ethically neutral. There are only techniques the search engines appear to accept at any given point in time and those they do not.

>>"You seem unclear on these issues, so stick around and discuss things"

Thanks, but I'm not unclear on these issues as my posts,hopefully, illustrate.

Clients of mine who have a strong brand get very conservative treatment along the lines of the i-prospect mantra.

Those who want traffic at "all costs" and who don't care if they get a few web sites banned (as they have multiple domains and deep pockets) require a different approach. For them, a day without traffic costs them very real cash and they are prepared to "sail close to the wind" in order to get it.

My personal ethics relate to providing a service to clients and charging them a fee. Both sides are happy.

The techniques I use to achieve this aim operate in an environment that is not and will never be clearly defined. That is why I feel that techiques, in themselves, are ethically neutral. There are only techniques that may lead to banning and those that do not.

Anyway, thanks for the debate. I guess we'll agree to differ as I have work to do.

I wish your board and your members well.