What exactly is ethical SEO?

[Dan0]

A lot of the self-appointed champions of "SEO ethics" are defining ethical SEO as "don't spam unless your client knows the risks." The search engines aren't going to buy into any of that.

Watch what gets published in the CS department at Stanford, if you need an idea of where the search engines are likely to go. They are talking about spam and cloaking in undergraduate courses, and the research that bubbles up from that is very interesting.

Just a couple examples:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs276a/projects/reports/rdg12-afw.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs276a/handouts/lecture13-6in1.pdf
(cynical note: look for WPGold to include "stop word frequency" and "noun frequency" analysis soon)

[ihelpyou]

So damn true.

Oh sure, if you are spammer, you better warn your client of the risks involved. That's only common sense and being a decent human being.

But what that has to do with 'spammers' in general is beyond me..

So will this "new organization" include these spammers as well? Me thinks so, and a reason they don't have to include me in it.

[MJR]

A lot of the self-appointed champions of "SEO ethics" are defining ethical SEO as "don't spam unless your client knows the risks." The search engines aren't going to buy into any of that. I think what's more the problem is what may be considered "spam" at one engine may not be at another - and some SEO's define knowing which engines allow what is what makes a good SEO - without "ethics" ever entering into the formula.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, and those engines like AltaVista and Fast with very loose spam requirements are two at the bottom of the pole right now.

As Dan pointed out, research reports are being made up right now, and I'm sure much discussion on this spam stuff comes up.

The reality is, is that the best engines are those with strict spam policies. Spam is the number one detriment to good SERPS that there is. Reality today shows this very well.

[Advisor]

I think right now that Edward from SEOConsultants is in the best position to actually turn SEOC into an organization that would be good for the biz. With his extremely strict guidelines, he's already ahead of the pack. It would be easy to change it to a membership org. and have there be other things they did besides just listing member sites.

I would imagine Edward has thought of this before.

Like Doug, I have no interest in joining any group at the moment, until it's clear what they're all about. I was the same way with SEOC. Once I saw exactly how Edward was running it, I was happy to join. (He may kick me out one day, but that's another story!)

Jill

[MJR]

You can have all the "groups" you want, and there are many of them, but if the Search Engines themselves don't get on board there is not much progress that is going to be made. Doug finds it easy to call everything he doesn't agree with spam but until we get the Search Engines collectively making the determination this will be a long battle with no end in sight :)

[Dan0]

You're always going to have a broad range of ideas about what is spam, what is cloaking, etc. It seems clear enough to everyone that what *they* see as spam is the correct definition, but nobody really has the same view.

[ihelpyou]

I go off of what the major search engine of the day says what spam is. I could care less what the likes of altavista say it is.

Check your referrals. If you do not think it's important to know what Google says spam is right now, then that person is not with reality.

If and when another search engine steps up to the plate, I will abide by that search engines definition of spam. Any SEO who does not, is only asking for problems.

[MJR]

Now Doug, this is where the problem begins. My top referrer on ALL of my sites is MSN largely due (probably) to my Inktomi submissions (and I am placed VERY well on Google). Now in my case I am more inclined to care more about MSN than Google who BTW comes in number 2 through 4 on my sites. All my point really is that until these engines get together on their definitions, everything else, short of ethics possibly, is just *our* opinion :)

[ihelpyou]

Then you are a minority. Unless you pay for Looksmart PPC, you ain't gonna have more from MSN, or unless your positions on Google ain't that great either.

Further, it's Not my opinion about spam. Never was.

[MJR]

I am ranked very well in Google on most of my targeted keywords. It is just that MSN sends me more traffic. It is important that I point out that all the search engines combine only account for about 20-25% of my over all traffic. But remember that most of my sites are regional portals and they depend heavily on their local traffic. In addition, I suspect that one of the reasons that all but one of my sites may be doing so well on MSN is that they've been in that directory for years, long before L$ or Ink. :)

[lots0cash]

You’re a “Bad” SEO and I am a “Good” SEO - I am an ethical SEO and your not - this is ridiculous!

Just what does an SEO do - an SEO gets top placement in search engines for web pages - that’s what we do. Does it matter how we do it - NO. As long as the client is fully informed of ALL methods available their upsides and their downsides - then the client should make the decision, not the SEO.

IMO an "unethical SEO" is one that refuses to tell there clients that there are ways to get that #1 spot for that single keyword that returns 2million+ results and 25,000 searches a day. This "unethical SEO" would say something like “Oh that’s not realistic - lets target this combination of 3 keywords that returns 20,000 results and gets 50 searches a day, I the ethical SEO will get you a #1 spot for this 3 word phrase.”

So who is this so called “ethical SEO” working for anyway, the search engine or the client?

If your taking money from the client you should be working for them - and to hell with what the SE’s want or don’t want.

<edited for spelling>

[Alan Perkins]

This just about sums up my opinions on the matter:

What it Means To Be a Professional (http://www.highrankings.com/issue028.htm#rant)

[ihelpyou]

Yes, that is a very good article!

Mr. Site Owner:
I want to cloak so competitors don't steal my code and I don't want to make any visible site changes.

Mr. Unprofessional Spammer:
There is some risk but I have never been caught so that is fine with me.

[Advisor]

Good article. :D

[Matt B]

Originally posted by lots0cash
If your taking money from the client you should be working for them - and to hell with what the SE’s want or don’t want.

Most times the client doesn't know what is best for them - it is up to you as a professional to do what is best for your client and give them the best return for their investment.

[lots0cash]

Most times the client doesn't know what is best for them - it is up to you as a professional to do what is best for your client and give them the best return for their investment.
So according to you the “ethical” and “professional” SEO decides what’s best for the client without letting the client know what the alternatives are. That sounds unprofessional and unethical to me.

[Advisor]

Hey Lotso...

How can there be any alternative to "best"?

Are you saying SEOs should do things that aren't best for their clients?

Jill

[lots0cash]

How can there be any alternative to "best"?"Best" is a subjective term.


Are you saying SEOs should do things that aren't best for their clients?
What I am saying is let the client decide what is "best" for them and their business.

[Advisor]

So you are saying that the client knows better than the SEO specialist, about SEO?

I don't really see how that can make sense, Lotso. If that were true, why would they need to hire someone to help them?

Jill

[lots0cash]

Jill said;I don't really see how that can make sense, Lotso. If that were true, why would they need to hire someone to help them?

and I said back 4 posts ago;So according to you the “ethical” and “professional” SEO decides what’s best for the client without letting the client know what the alternatives are. That sounds unprofessional and unethical to me.
bolding added.

The client needs the SEO to be professional and tell the client all the alternatives.

[ihelpyou]

I agree. I have No clue as to how or why you feel the SEO that is Professional is also an SEO who should tell the client how to spam? Or even that spamming or cloaking is even an alternative?

If/when a SEO does do that, the SEO is VERY unprofessional. It's a duty of the Professional SEO to do what is "best" for the client. In no way is cloaking or spamming doing the "best" for the client. The professional will tell that client that he will in NO way spam on his behalf.

Please read Jill's article again.

[markymark]

Interesting point you are raising, Lots0. If I've understood correctly, you are saying that it would be 'unprofessional' of an SEO not to inform a potential client of all the options available to them. Including cloaking, doorways or whatever. This would then allow the potential client to make an informed decision on what type of SEO they want. Right ?

If so, then I agree 100%. This is quite a different issue from the notion that the client knows better than the SEO. Personally, I do not use cloaking, hidden layers, etc and would always recommend against it. However, I do make it very clear that these options exist and that if that is the way the client wants to go, then I will not be able to help further.

[ihelpyou]

I know we don't agree many times, but this time has got to be the strongest disagreement I have yet for something you have posted. :)

[ihelpyou]

If that is what he is saying, well, that is different. I thought he posted the client knows best?

Although, a client who does not even know that other stuff exists does not need me to give him those alternatives. :)

[Advisor]

However, I do make it very clear that these options exist and that if that is the way the client wants to go, then I will not be able to help further.

Exactly! I think most of us do this.

In fact, I believe as part of my proposal, I have a section entitled, "Why I don't use doorway/gateway pages."

I would certainly never hide that any of these other techniques exist, and neither do I think any professional SEO would.

We simply would recommend against them, as is our professional duty.

Jill

[Matt B]

posted by Lotso
So according to you the “ethical” and “professional” SEO decides what’s best for the client without letting the client know what the alternatives are. That sounds unprofessional and unethical to me.I never said I would not inform my clients them of the options available. You are assuming what I didn't say and changing the whole arguement.

But, seeing as many of my clients have been through other "professional" SEO's that mentioned risks and downplayed the consequences then used doorways, cloaking, and other liberties, I have had to rescue many clients from the dreaded PR0.

They have no problem with my recommendations, as I have produced better results, using SE-compliant methods, than any "SEO" they used in the past. My way works, and my clients are more than willing to recommend it to any of my newer clients that think they want a quick solution.

[lots0cash]

markymark said;
...you are saying that it would be 'unprofessional' of an SEO not to inform a potential client of all the options available to them. Including cloaking, doorways or whatever. This would then allow the potential client to make an informed decision on what type of SEO they want. Right ?
Yes that is what I am saying.

[ihelpyou]

Okay good. Now go on please. :) What would you do if that client insists on doorways or spam of any kind?

[lots0cash]

What would you do if that client insists on doorways or spam of any kind?
Well I would not send out any unsolicited email(spam).

As far as the methods I would use - that would depend on what the client wants. I work for the client not the search engines. I know what the search engines want and don’t want, but the SE's don't pay my bills, the clients do.

[ihelpyou]

As far as the methods I would use - that would depend on what the client wants. I work for the client not the search engines. I know what the search engines want and don’t want, but the SE's don't pay my bills, the clients do.
Okay, so in spite of the fact that your client could be penalized because of what your client wants, you would go ahead and do what "your" client wants anyway just because your client wanted to do it?

[Matt B]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Okay, so in spite of the fact that your client could be penalized because of what your client wants, you would go ahead and do what "your" client wants anyway just because your client wanted to do it?

Ask Arthur Anderson if they'll do what the client wants, again . . (Enron's accountants) :)

[ihelpyou]

Great example! :D

[Kal]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I do make it very clear that these options exist and that if that is the way the client wants to go, then I will not be able to help further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Advisor
Exactly! I think most of us do this.
Not me. I prefer not to mention these tactics at all for fear of:

a) confusing the client even further
b) tempting the client to go the spam route
c) indirectly encouraging the subversion of the search engine indices

I know it sounds self-righteous, but I feel some responsibility to the search engines to stem the flow of poor quality results and educate the non-SEO savvy about the more effective, non-questionable traditional SEO techniques.

Originally posted by SEO Guy
But, seeing as many of my clients have been through other "professional" SEO's that mentioned risks and downplayed the consequences then used doorways, cloaking, and other liberties, I have had to rescue many clients from the dreaded PR0. Ditto. What a lot of wasted time and suffering that could have been avoided if the client was guided correctly in the first instance.

[lots0cash]

Not a good example at all - what Arthur Anderson and Enron did was against the law - people went to jail.No, not the same thing at all...

[ihelpyou]

Yes but we are talking about Professional and unprofessional in "our" industry. Of course, spamming is Not against the law, but that example is clearly a good one. We don't have any clear-cut laws.

I consider a SEO who would take the money from a site and simply do what the client wants as unprofessional.

[lots0cash]

kal said;Not me. I prefer not to mention these tactics at all...So what do you tell a client that wants a top 10 placement for a keyword that returns 8mill results? do you tell them it can't be done?

[ihelpyou]

So you consider any term with lots of results as a good term to target? What does that have to do with anything?

And why would a Professional have to tell the client the only way to get good ranks is to spam?

[Kal]

Originally posted by lots0cash
kal said;So what do you tell a client that wants a top 10 placement for a keyword that returns 8mill results? do you tell them it can't be done? I don't sell SEO based on specific rankings. I sell based on ROI :).

There's no point encouraging a client to target a generic, competitive keyword that will bring 10,000 visitors a week if 9,999 of those visitors click away from the site immediately. I encourage my clients to target more specific, focused and less competitive keywords that result in more conversions because the searcher was seeking *exactly* what the site offers and so is more qualified upon arrival to convert to a customer.

[markymark]

Lots0 wrote:So what do you tell a client that wants a top 10 placement for a keyword that returns 8mill results? do you tell them it can't be done?
You're implying that a top ten result for a keyword with 8 million results can't be achieved without spamming. In which case, you're wrong. It can be done - I've done it (actually the word in question had 25 million results at the time) and I expect many of the SEOs here have done it also.

[Matt B]

Would "ethical" SEO simply be considered SE compliant?

[ihelpyou]

That's my thoughts on it, but others don't think so. Others will say that if you 'warn' the client about the risks involved, that's all you need to do to be 'ethical'. I'm not satisfied with that at all.

I believe that "ethical" and "Professional" go hand in hand.

[Matt B]

Well, in the same vein, I would ask a brain surgeon about risks, but I would also ask him what he recommend if I were his son or brother -
Not only his professional opinion, but his personal choice.

[markymark]

Well, what they are saying does fall within the definition of ethics, of course, Doug. It's a facile argument though. Taken to a logical extreme, they are only one step away from arguing that ethical SEOs are the ones who do not kill, maim, rape or otherwise injure their clients. After all, murder and assault are clearly unethical, aren't they !

[lots0cash]

Kal said;
I don't sell SEO based on specific rankings. I sell based on ROIWhat kind of an ROI do you offer them kal?

...target a generic, competitive keyword that will bring 10,000 visitors a week if 9,999 of those visitors click away from the site immediately.Kal I think your numbers are quite a bit off, even for non-targeted terms.

At .05% conversion rate (and we all know that’s very poor) that 10,000 visitors a week equals 5 sales a week.

Now a highly targeted term that draws 100 visitors a week with a conversion rate of 3% (and we all know that is very high and not very many online business even come close to a 3% conversion rate) it’s going to be only 3 sales a week.

Let me think about this 5 sales a week or 3 sales a week...what would my client rather have? What the heck I'm going to tell my client 3 sales a week is good and to get anymore would be unethical.

The above is an example - we all know that examples can be twisted to come out any way we want them to. But IMO the bottom line is making the client money - not catering to a search engine. No matter how you cut it, more traffic means more sales.

If your making your clients site that sells shoes more relevant to the SE’s for the term “shoes” - what’s wrong with that? And why should the SE’s care how you improve a web sites relevancy, as long as your not trying to mislead searchers?

Would "ethical" SEO simply be considered SE compliant?only compliant with one SE. the one that started all this crap about a technology being "ethical" or not.

[ihelpyou]

If your making your clients site that sells shoes more relevant to the SE’s for the term “shoes” - what’s wrong with that? And why should the SE’s care how you improve a web sites relevancy, as long as your not trying to mislead searchers?
Sorry Lotso, but you are simply not making any sense. :)

Why would a client or a sharp SEO wish to target the word "shoes"? Why waste your time or your clients time for a one word term that you may get a decent rank on, or more than likely, never have a prayer? Why even try for that one word?

No sense at all. Besides, why would a server or site wish to get all those visitors for that term with only 5 sales from them?

No sense at all.

[Matt B]

Originally posted by lots0cash
only compliant with one SE. the one that started all this crap about a technology being "ethical" or not.

I beg to differ:

Inktomi Guidelines (http://www.inktomi.com/products/web_search/guidelines.html)

FAST Webmaster guidelines (http://www.alltheweb.com/help/webmaster/faq.html#7) :also, we continuously strive to improve the quality of the AlltheWeb index. As a part of this quality improvement, we remove content we regard as spam, etc.

Teoma Spam Guidelines (http://ask.ineedhits.com/programterms.asp?n=u#spam)


just a few examples of SE compliance. . .

[lots0cash]

Funny you would know just what SE I was talking about SEOguy.

I hate to tell you but the word "ethical" or "unethical" do not appear anywhere in those pages whos links you showed but those words do appear here. http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

[Matt B]

I'm not talking about ethics. As you pointed out, breaking SE rules isn't against the law.

I am talking about complaince. :cool:

[Kal]

Originally posted by lots0cash
Kal said;
What kind of an ROI do you offer them kal? A money back satisfaction guarantee that we will deliver high rankings and targeted traffic that will pay for the SEO campaign quickly and a SEO methodology that will keep working for many months, often years. No risks, no tricks, no problems.

Originally posted by lots0cash
Kal I think your numbers are quite a bit off, even for non-targeted terms. Of course, it was an example to make a point.

As markymark said, high rankings for very competitive terms CAN and HAVE been achieved without spamming by many of us in here. But personally, I've found a much higher ROI for my clients can be delivered on the less competitive, more targeted keyword phrases.

Originally posted by lots0cash
Let me think about this 5 sales a week or 3 sales a week...what would my client rather have? What the heck I'm going to tell my client 3 sales a week is good and to get anymore would be unethical. You're reasoning is flawed. Taking ethics out of the equation altogether, you are assuming that questionable tactics automatically = more traffic. You are also assuming I'm talking about a very low traffic level for non-generic keywords. That's not the case. I aim for keyphrases that are both highly searched and have few sites competing for them. What if (as is often the case for my clients) the niche keywords attracted 1000 visitors a week? Then your 3% conversion rate becomes 30 sales. Even at 500 visitors, the ROI on niche keywords still beats generic traffic hands down.

Also, why is it "smarter" to use methods that are risky and bring short term gains at best, just to achieve high rankings on generic keywords that may or may not attract the right visitors? The use of questionable or unacceptable methods to achieve such rankings could quite easily backfire on your client by resulting in ranking penalties or outright banning, resulting in the need to start from scratch.

Now Lots0 - you tell me how that is more cost effective than doing it the "compliant" way to start with?

[excell]

"5 sales a week or 3 sales a week...what would my client rather have? What the heck I'm going to tell my client 3 sales a week is good and to get anymore would be unethical."

Probably, because 3 sales a week is a lot better than zero sales a week if they get labelled as a "spam" company.

[Webmaster T]

[i]

Watch what gets published in the CS department at Stanford, if you need an idea of where the search engines are likely to go. They are talking about spam and cloaking in undergraduate courses, and the research that bubbles up from that is very interesting.

Just a couple examples:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs276a/projects/reports/rdg12-afw.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs276a/handouts/lecture13-6in1.pdf
(cynical note: look for WPGold to include "stop word frequency" and "noun frequency" analysis soon) [/B]

As one of those self appointed champions of SEO ethics, who would appoint anyone? It's also a thankless job, I should know I started in 96 and know exactly how thankless it is! Hacked sites and countless emails, that to be frank, aren't very flattering if your not a big believer in the "judicial system" or worse the references to a certain rodent.

I guess it helps that I could care less what most people think of me or my opinions. As the ole' saying goes "opinions are like a....oles, eveyone's got one". Take from them what you want or ignore them. Family, friends and clients are all that really matter. The rest, see above;)

Wow! that analyzer sounds cool. I think they gave themselves less credit than this work deserves. The analyzer could be improved by someone "in the industry" who knows the tendencies of spammers and what form that spam takes in the HTML elements and attributes. In other words add the standard spammer MO in some HTML elements to their analysis of sentences and stop words etc.

You know the elements used to hide the spam, comma delimited lists and keywords stacking in img alt, comments, directly after the body tag no less, with sentences in it and keywords (contrary to the recommended use in the HTML standards) and high repeat counts in meta are, IMHO, always a good indicater of a "predilection to spam". 1 may not be bad, more than that though and ................ shame on you.

What is very interesting is that it isn't "subjective". It's a program, it is devoid of "opinion/bias", other than that which is the bias of the solutions algo and author.

Is it beatable in it's present form? yes you mentioned one way to do it already. However, to beat it you defeat the original purpose. Hence, a type of restraint on those using the technique is imposed. Much like the ole' infoseek sniffer for invisisble text put a quick end to much of the invisible text. Unfortunately it snagged some sites that it thought were using it but weren't........ and the nightmare began. Is it just a coincidence that Infoseek dies and there is a sudden proliferation of hidden text?

As to the discussion of organizations, I am sort of in the loop on almost everyone of them. I have exchanged ideas via email with all of them mentioned plus a few more. Some I have a much closer relationship and we have shared info that concerns and improves the organizations. Probably because we have similar goals and mutual interests and are willing to "share" that which is mutually beneficial.

Some, Edward, in particular I would agree do a better job of "monitoring" and have higher standards for "inclusion". I would readily admit SeoPros is probably lax in that regards. That would be due to the fact that I believe everyone deserves an equal shot and since I would be reluctant to up any of my references I don't expect anyone to give them to me. I have real isues with anything that could make the consumer feel tooooo safe. Therefore leading to reduced or poor due diligence.

I also believe that there are metrics within the data collected during a campaign that are more effective at evaluating a consultants services than just human site reviews and reference checking. Ie: keywords selection, submission and position monitoring evaluation on an ongoing basis. The same sorts of metrics which are used for banners and to a lesser extent print publications and broadcat media.

I would, in a minute, shut SeoPros down if I thought it would move the standards process along. I would agree that Edward is the best bet to do it because he has no fees attached. All others are tied, some more than others, to fees for memberships.

Unfortunately, he has removed his ethics link, I am using that in its loosest terms, no offence to Edward, but much is known about its author, much of it not good. Edward doesn't seem too interested in replacing it, possibly because the controversy the last one probably caused and I assume his hands are more than full with the rigorous reviews and his other interests like keeping a roof over his head. :)

There is also the considerations of how any "organization" is funded. I would say at some point there has got to be something in it for him. From my own experience I can say categorically that the industry has shown little to no interest in supporting any of them financially or to some degree what they are trying to accomplish. I'm sure the others feel the same way. Probably Edward included.

It has become an alphabet soup of "best practices", all of them with an agenda and that is the crux of the problem. Before I came onto the net I was in another industry with many of the same problems. Telemarketing, also has the "alphabet soup" of "consumer" organizations and industry monitoring.

What happened to them? Well they ended up with the government taking over and creating a national "do not call" database. The industry is now in a steep decline with the "biggies" like Time Books recent announcement they are getting out of the business! Not to mention autodialer zappers and other technology to zap their lists.

Telemarketing was, at one time, an emerging industry, like this one, with many of the same problems associated with some of the same types of personalities within it. ie **crooks and scam artists** with few if any morals or ethics. We would all be foolish to "enable" the same fate. IMHO, Enabling is what we are doing when all we do is complain and whine with too few in the industry doing anything constructive about it. :rolleyes:

So, I will say, here and now, I'll endorse and fully support **any standard** by any "alphabet souper", directory or combination or variation willing to check their ego and agenda at the door and work towards formation of a "body" to implement it with or without the support of SE. :cheers:

IMHO, that train will never leave the station, they have nothing to gain and much to loose. Besides, when have they done anything that wasn't **in their own self interest**. Maybe, someday they will realize it's in their best interests, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Most of them have their heads so far up their a...s with monetization of search, I'm afraid they never will get it. Sometimes I wonder if, other than Google, they don't think what an SEO makes is money that is rightfully theirs. They'd prefer everyone just used PPC and all the methods that fill their coffers and ignored SEO's. IMHO, when we do nothing, and wait for them that is exactly what they want.

Just my .02 Ca., and we all know what that's worth;)

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by Kal
A money back satisfaction guarantee that we will deliver high rankings and targeted traffic that will pay for the SEO campaign quickly and a SEO methodology that will keep working for many months, often years. No risks, no tricks, no problems.


Interesting, I agree the last two statement are the only real gauge of effective campaigns. I give one guarantee, and that is that I will give it my best effort and do nothing for them I wouldn't do on my own site. Most guarantees are a sham and are often subject to abuse by those giving them. Like, what constitutes top ten? Many of them include PPC in that!

I've always had a problem with ROI and SEO, it is fine if the site sells directly. How do you measure ROI for campaigns for cars, homes, and most big ticket items. It's well documented that a lot of research is done on online and they purchase offline. The new homes site I maintain has had sales directly tied to a visit from the website verified by the salesman who made the sale. They showed him exactly what they wanted on the website and told him how they found it.

Then there is the argument that ROI isn't really a true metric for click and mortar. Many people will go directly to the store. For instance a large local book seller, I frequently search the site for a location where it is available and by it then! Why wait, I want the info now and well I have no CC and would be sqeamish about using it online if I did have one.

What about the fact that I may have found this site on an engine went there liked it but didn't buy anything. But a week later I go to the trusty bookmarks and click in.

The best bet is determine what constitutes conversion based on the goals of the site. That is often not even sales. It is often just some particular action by the user. For insatance on that site I did sign up for a membership card for rebates. I have cookies turned off in one browser I frequently surf with. Absolutely no way to track that using ROI as it is normally thought of.

[ihelpyou]

Good thoughts WT!

Look for a major search engine to do something with a type of 'overseer' on the SEO industry. It would be in their best interests.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Good thoughts WT!

Look for a major search engine to do something with a type of 'overseer' on the SEO industry. It would be in their best interests.

An 'overseer' and who does he answer to? Interesting that you call him that, my ole' buddy used to call guards at the crowbar hotel that:)

[ihelpyou]

No one. The se would be the one who 'heads' up our industry as is the way it probably should be. Afterall, they make the rules that we should abide by if we are Professionals.

[chris]

Cool. How about we just pick one search engine for the job, because they all tug in different directions and it gets confusing.

[lots0cash]

Kal said,
Now Lots0 - you tell me how that is more cost effective than doing it the "compliant" way to start with?

First of all you are assuming that what ever methods I use would be detected by the SE in a short period of time - this is not the case.

As you well know(or should know if you are a professional) Google is unable to detect most all advanced SEO methods. That is why google has promoted this idea of “ethical” and “unethical” SEO, so a few misguided SEO’s would do for them what google’s technology was unable to do on it’s own.

I have never had a site I have worked on banned from Google or anywhere else. The only site I have ever received a google penalty on is a personal hobby site of mine that is hosted by SearchKing. And that site was ONLY penalized because it was hosted by SearchKing and Google unfairly penalized sites that were hosted by SearchKing.

[lots0cash]

I said on page 2 of this thread,
IMO an "unethical SEO" is one that refuses to tell there clients that there are ways to get that #1 spot for that single keyword that returns 2million+ results and 25,000 searches a day. This "unethical SEO" would say something like Oh that’s not realistic - lets target this combination of 3 keywords that returns 20,000 results and gets 50 searches a day, I the ethical SEO will get you a #1 spot for this 3 word phrase.


Doug said on page 5 of this thread,
Why would a client or a sharp SEO wish to target the word "shoes"? Why waste your time or your clients time for a one word term that you may get a decent rank on, or more than likely, never have a prayer? Why even try for that one word?

I hope it’s not just me that sees the comedy in this...
bolding added

[Advisor]

You sure do have some faulty logic there, lotso!

Just because you said that the "unethical SEO" would say not to target those terms, doesn't make it true.

The smart SEO would say that. How in the world is it unethical to say that?

[ihelpyou]

Wow lotso, and I thought you used your head in most occasions. You make no sense and sorry if we cannot seem to help you.

[lots0cash]

Doug said,
You make no sense and sorry if we cannot seem to help you.

Doug, I did not really expect you to “get it”. :)
I did not ask for nor do I need your “help”, I thought we were having a discussion about SEO “ethics”.

Jill said,
You sure do have some faulty logic there, lotso!
How so, because I find those two quotes humorous when put in that context?

[ihelpyou]

You are right. I don't 'get you' at all. :)

Making no sense Lotso. And the thing is, I wish we could get you to see.

[Advisor]

The logic is faulty because your premise is incorrect.

It would have been funny if not for that. (In other words, if a person who said that really was an unethical SEO.)

Jill

[lots0cash]

Well IMO a SEO that decides to go along with the SE’s want to the detriment of his/her client is “unethical”.

When a SEO does not tell their client all the facts - does the SEO do this to be “ethical” or does the SEO do this to retain the client and that clients fee?

[Advisor]

The key to what you're saying is: "to the detriment of his/her client."

Certainly, not telling a client to cloak or use doorway pages is in no way ever going to be a detriment to a client!

To say it is, is simply wrong. And that is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

Cloaking and doorway pages is NEVER an option for a professional SEO. It's really that simple.

Jill

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by WCWH
Now Doug, this is where the problem begins. My top referrer on ALL of my sites is MSN largely due (probably) to my Inktomi submissions (and I am placed VERY well on Google).
Well, Inky, is the secondary provider on MSN so I would conclude that you may want to rethink your keywords strategy. Unless your primary terms are in a noncompetive topic how could INKY inclusion be responsible for it. There would have to be few if any LS listings. Googles index is accessed for over 80% of the searches. You may be right on but, logic tells me something just isn't adding up here.:confused:

[ihelpyou]

Sorry Lotso, but the more you post, the more you don't make sense.

Me no not am no comprendo not unstand me idiot I not uderstand you at all. :D

[lots0cash]

Cloaking and doorway pages is NEVER an option for a professional SEO. It's really that simple.No it's not that simple and you know it.


Certainly, not telling a client to cloak or use doorway pages is in no way ever going to be a detriment to a client!
Oh come Jill lets get real! Most SE's allow cloaking(however you want to define it) And the only SE that does ban sites for "cloaking"(google) allows those same sites that are banned for cloaking to purchase adwords placement. So that it is in this SE's financial interest to ban sites.

Sorry your not able to understand me Doug...too bad really :D

[Advisor]

No it's not that simple and you know it.

Yes, actually it IS that simple.

There are ALWAYS other ways to do things.

I agree that the client won't always agree to do the other things, but that's their problem, not mine.

Jill

[lots0cash]

I agree that the client won't always agree to do the other things, but that's their problem, not mine.If you mean by "the other things" not making as much money as they should and/or waiting 6+ months or longer for a good SERP then I think it is the SEO's problem.

But then thats just my opinion, I like to put the client first and to hell with what the SE's want or don't want.

But some SEO's want to put the SE's first and to hell with the client - not my way of doing business

<bolding added>

[ihelpyou]

Yes. Your way is the Unethical way of SEO. You are Unprofessional if that is how you do it. Please tell the viewers in here that you really don't mean any of this and you are joking, right?

The truth hurts Lotso. But those are the facts. Frankly, I'm getting kinda tired of seeing this stuff being posted. It ain't for the people who are trying to learn the professional way and the ethical way of SEO.

Your way ain't gonna cut it in here. :)

[lots0cash]

Unethical according to who, Google? Now there’s a perfect example of a company that is unethical - say one thing and do another - ban a site for doing whatever then let it back on top of the SERP after it has paid through the nose to get in adwords.

I put my clients first what is wrong(unethical) with that?

Doug said,
Your way ain't gonna cut it in here.Sounds like your gonna ban me for my opinions - I thought different opinions were a good thing...I guess not here...looks like there is a new sheriff in town...LOL

[ihelpyou]

No. I did not say that. I said "you" are unethical, not Google. But please tell our viewers that this is just a joke.

Where did I say I was going to ban you? I have left that special priviledge to only 3 members in 1 1/2 years. You have to be very special for me to ban you.

But, I don't like your thoughts or opinions and truly hope you are joking.

[lots0cash]

But, I don't like your thoughts or opinions and truly hope you are joking.Nope not joking - And I did not expect you to like or agree with my opinons.

I'll ask again, what is wrong or unethical with putting your client first?

[ihelpyou]

We are going in circles. No need to continue. You say you are putting them first. We say you are putting "your" client Last and NOT looking out for their well being. Yes, that's right. You are Not putting the well being of your client first. You are NOT doing what is "Best" for your client. Not at all.

I've said all I'm gonna say to you. If you choose to ignore the advice we have given you, that's your choice. Don't come crying to us when you or your client is banned the next time. Further, don't come crying to us when another Massa thing comes along again that you are a part of. Please give us a break the next time.

[ihelpyou]

Could someone else please jump in here and take over? I'm tired of this debate already. :)

[lots0cash]

First of all Doug this is the last place I would come looking for SEO “help” - I can target keywords all by myself. ;)

Doug you don’t comprehend very well do you - I said I have never had a client site banned. As far as SearchKing goes well I said I was not going to talk about that issue here in this forum again. But I don’t believe I was crying.

You see Doug I think you are the unethical one - you put google first before your clients then you take your clients money. Now that’s unethical...

And if you don’t understand that, maybe you should look into some reading comprehension classes.

[ihelpyou]

You see Doug I think you are the unethical one - you put google first before your clients then you take your clients money. Now that’s unethical...
HUH?

LOL

[lots0cash]

Don't worry about anyone taking over Doug, I need to go to work now and go cloak some pages so my clients can make some money.

[ihelpyou]

Actually Lotso, this is the first I have ever heard of you being a SEO. So good luck to ya!

[excell]

"client first and to hell with what the SE's want or don't want"

Oh yeee..OUCH....!!!

That is the wrong way around through & through there. There are horses for courses but how very opposite that is to one who will put the client first by working *with* the search engines for their success. Altogether a much happier outcome for all, in my opinion :)

[Advisor]

I've gotta say, I've never heard such backward thinking in my life!

Lotso, you definitely take the cake!

Jill

[Kal]

Originally posted by lots0cash
If you mean by "the other things" not making as much money as they should and/or waiting 6+ months or longer for a good SERP then I think it is the SEO's problem.
If you have to wait six or more months for results using traditional SEO techniques, then you're not a very good SEO :). It's really nothing to do with ethics. It's business sense. You should be able to improve your client's bottom line effectively without risking their $ outlay at any stage. Initial ranking improvements from traditional search engine compliant SEO can be seen in as little as two weeks.

These type of SEO campaigns pay for themselves quickly and work over the long term with no risk of failure, penalty or permanent banning of a client's online brand (which can be catastrophic for some). If you are a professional business person, you have your client's best interests at heart and will guide them away from anything that could possibly threaten their business.

[excell]

amen to that Kal.

[Matt B]

I think we have all seen that any arguement about ethics can get heated and sidetracked. I guess spammers might be ethical people also. Definitely paranoid, could be ethical as well . . . :rolleyes:

I believe the new term is catching on, and I like it. Search engine-compliant SEO seems to be much more descriptive and accurate, while separating the differing methods of gaining rankings right away. I also believe it is a more easily-understood term for the typical business client.

[Kal]

Originally posted by SEO Guy
I believe the new term is catching on, and I like it. Search engine-compliant SEO seems to be much more descriptive and accurate Yeah I like it a lot. I forget who came up with it (was it you Matt?), but thank you for suggesting it :cheers:

[Matt B]

I used it a while back, but I'm hesitant to accept credit for it. Especially when it is only common sense.

Maybe I should copyright it and sue whoever else uses it . :cool:

[Advisor]

Funny you should say common sense, Matt. I was just about to say that I don't really like the phrase "search engine compliant" SEO, because in my mind, it doesn't really have much to do with complying with the search engines. It's simply using you're own common sense to know and do what's right for everybody.

If we were to be search engine compliant, I guess we'd have to follow Google's silly faq to the letter and rat out all "spam" pages, give unconditional money back guarantees, and whatever other clueless things they mentioned! No thanks.

I'll just keep doing what I'm doing cuz it makes sense, not cuz the engines tell me to (or tell me not to!).

I have to laugh when people talk about how they want clear rules and guidelines. That's just so amusing to me.

Jill

[Matt B]

Originally posted by Advisor
If we were to be search engine compliant, I guess we'd have to follow Google's silly faq to the letter and rat out all "spam" pages, give unconditional money back guarantees, and whatever other clueless things they mentioned! No thanks.

I didn't think about the spam reporting - I guess I'm not so compliant after all. :rolleyes:
I'll report some blatant stuff, but until Google pays me, I'm not going on spam hunts while on client time.

Even common sense is a loose term, because some paranoid delusionals that think Se's are out to rule the world and brainwash people, 1984-style, may think cloaking is common sense. Or, at least, suing them. :D

[Webmaster T]

This is great stuff! Lotso won't agree for sure with me on this but I see an SEO campaign as a three way partnership. The SEO, SE and the client. Anything I do has to be benefical to all or the partnership suffers. If I do my job correctly, and the client provides content as instructed in my strategy then the SE get the relevent content they want and will "reward" that with good rankings that don't need constant tweaking to stay in the results. Everyone gets what they want out of the partnership!

[Advisor]

Absolutely, T! Those are words to live by!

Jill

[lots0cash]

WT said,
Lotso won't agree for sure with me on this but I see an SEO campaign as a three way partnership. The SEO, SE and the client.Well your right there T, I don’t agree with you.(interesting-why did you list the client last?)


I don’t see the SE’s as a “partner” I see them as a tool, a tool to use for the benefit of the company paying me. I will twist, push, pull, stretch, bend and even break that SE tool if it will benefit my client.

Unlike some of the folks on this forum I don’t think my clients or myself owe the SE’s anything. The SE’s make a LOT of money from using the copyrighted content we provide without the SE’s paying for it. That should be enough for them.

Actually Lotso, this is the first I have ever heard of you being a SEO. So good luck to ya! Thanks Doug - but it is a little belated - I have been doing professional SEO for several years - I have just never had to advertise, that word of mouth thing keeps me busy.:) Make the clients money and they just love ya and want to tell all there friends about you.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by lots0cash
WT said,
Well your right there T, I don’t agree with you.(interesting-why did you list the client last?)
Not because I think they are less important!!! Ask them, 5 years in top 5, and they paid me 1 time, not every month, because I have to trick the engine into keeping it there. I bet the way you describe what you do you can't say the same. I don't have time to fool with that malarky. Give me the next project where the real dough gets made "in the intial optimization/development" and move on. Maintenance is boring, uninspiring and one of the reasons up until 6 months ago I didn't even do straight optimization, just development/re-design with optimization thrown in gratis, nada peso, nada penny!

I got back into SEO **only** because I see another way to do the business which is strategy and supervision of implementation and analysis of campaign results. Strategy and analysis I love, it really makes me use my brain and see things in new ways. I enjoy working with others in the implemenatation, I absolutely hate doing it, like I said boringggggggggggg.

[Aesopian]

After reading the entire length of this thread, I think the true source of this argument is that no one can agree on or accurately define the definition of "ethical", in regard to SEO or otherwise.

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums Aesopian! :hi:

Yes, you are right! But we do know what a Professional is though. No spammer out there is a Professional. :)

[Advisor]

They might be professional spammers! Or professional cloakers. Or professional zebra page creator...

Jill

[Aesopian]

What is your definition of professional then?

[ihelpyou]

That is a huge question and one we have discussed quite a few times in here. Here is one search for posts:

http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=88184&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

Short answer:

One who advices on the very best practices for his/her client and only has the client's best interests in mind, and all the while abides by the stated guidelines of the search engines.

[Advisor]

I think Doug was basing the definition on the article I wrote on the subject here:

What it Means To Be a Search Engine Marketing Professional (http://www.highrankings.com/professional.htm)

Jill

[mncsc]

Originally posted by Webmaster T
I see an SEO campaign as a three way partnership. The SEO, SE and the client. Anything I do has to be benefical to all or the partnership suffers. If I do my job correctly, and the client provides content as instructed in my strategy then the SE get the relevent content they want and will "reward" that with good rankings that don't need constant tweaking to stay in the results. Everyone gets what they want out of the partnership!

Right on! I would add a fourth partner, the SE user & potential customer - he (or she) fits right into an "ethical" approach too. Bottom line, if you want *free* advertising via the SE, you may want to observe the spirit of their webmaster guides and terms of service. Otherwise, be prepared to explain to your client why their *free* traffic referrals went from 1000 to zero in one click of an SEs index deletion tool.

:cheers:

Edited to include both sexes - (sometimes forget to post non-gender)

[Alan Perkins]

[Added - :o: I didn't see mncsc's above post before I posted this, but I agree with it! :)]

The word "ethical" has a meaning in a professional context. The word "professional", as applied to doctors, teachers, etc. incorporates in its meaning the concept of subscribing to a body of ethics.Originally posted by Webmaster T
I see an SEO campaign as a three way partnership. The SEO, SE and the client. Anything I do has to be benefical to all or the partnership suffers. I also see it as a three way partnership: web site, search engine and searcher.

The ethics come into it as follows:

Before the searcher visits a search result, they are a customer of the search engine. The searcher is only searching at that search engine because of the search engine's own marketing efforts, reputation,etc. i.e. brand. We [the combination of all interested parties representing the web site (including webmasters, designers, SEOs, owners, etc.)] want to obtain the search engine's customer as our customer. There are two ways we can influence this: a) by building the kind of sites that the search engine likes and is happy to recommend to its customers, or b) by deceiving the search engine that we have done this If you are "ethical", (b) is not an option. Obtaining visitors by deception is not "ethical".As a webmaster, it should be obvious. If somebody lied to you about the nature of their site so that you linked to them, how would you feel once you found out about it? Wouldn't you want to remove the link? Search engines see it the same way.

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Very good.

It's amazing the many different ways you can say the same thing. That must be the best way I have seen it put yet! :)

[Aesopian]

Has anyone taken into consideration that the SE's themselves are capable of employing unethical practices?

I don't see why Google is suddenly God of Ethics, though I do see their recommendations aren't made out of malice towards SEO, but rather a need to protect their interests.

Does that make them the uniform yard stick of what is Right and Wrong? I think not.

In the end, it all comes back to the person at the other end of the wire, and humans are known to err in ethics.


And as an aside, has anyone read this article at Search Ethos (http://www.searchethos.com)?

The Danger of Defining "Ethical" SEO in Terms of Search Engine Compliance (http://www.searchethos.com/ethical-SEO.html)

In an earlier commentary on the ethics hype in SEO, I talk about why it's more constructive to view the debate about search-engine-compliant practices in terms of bad or good business practices (instead of ethics). Those who argue that non-compliant practices are unethical are confused and mistaken as to what ethics is about. They have not made any case as to why such practices are morally wrong. (Apart from repeating that the search engines don't like such practices.) Further, they can't appeal to a group consensus within the SEO community (or elsewhere) that has clearly defined the standards and values that are to be promoted or emulated.

[ihelpyou]

Hey Aesopian, been there and done it many times in here. Do searches to see ALL the threads about all of this. :)

Yes, I read that article and disagree with most of it.

Also, please read Alan's post again, and then read it again. It's very good and tells it all very simply.

No one is talking about Google. This thread is asking "what is ethical SEO?"

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by Aesopian
Has anyone taken into consideration that the SE's themselves are capable of employing unethical practices?Yes. Search engines deceiving searchers is one issue. SEOs deceiving search engines is another issue, and the one we are talking about here.I don't see why Google is suddenly God of Ethics, though I do see their recommendations aren't made out of malice towards SEO, but rather a need to protect their interests.

Does that make them the uniform yard stick of what is Right and Wrong? I think not.Google has nothing to do with it. If Google didn't exist there would still be some SEOs who chose to deceive search engines in order to obtain visitors, and some that did not. Google takes a verbal position against the former group of SEOs. They don't like SEOs attempting to deceive their algorithm. This is not surprising!And as an aside, has anyone read this article Yes. :)Those who argue that non-compliant practices are unethical are confused and mistaken as to what ethics is about. Likewise those who argue non-compliant practises are ethical. :) IMO "compliance" has nothing to do with it. "Deception" is where the ethical debate is at. Specifically, obtaining visitors by deception.

[Aesopian]

"Deception" is where the ethical debate is at. Specifically, obtaining visitors by deception. [/B]

I can agree to that.

As another aside, do we really need over 70 smilies?

:umbre: Look, I'm French.
:bandit: Now I'm a bandit.

I just noticed that.

[lots0cash]

Allan said,Before the searcher visits a search result, they are a customer of the search engine.The definition of a “customer” according to the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition is “One that buys goods or services.” .
So unless the searcher is purchasing the search service they could not possibly be the customer of the search engines. Ergo your argument is false Allan.

Allan also said,"Deception" is where the ethical debate is at. Specifically, obtaining visitors by deception.
How is it deceptive to make your page more relevant to the SE’s for your targeted terms? If you are selling widgets and you make your page more relevant to the SE’s for the term “widgets” how are you deceiving anyone, no matter what methods you use?

[ihelpyou]

So you think the 'visitor' who walks into Walmart is not the customer of Walmart if they don't buy anything while there? LOL

[ihelpyou]

Lotso, substitute the word 'customer' with any other word you want to stick in there and it still pertains to Alan's point:

"Before the searcher visits a search result, they are a 'visitor' of the search engine."

See? Use the word 'visitor' if you wish instead of 'customer'. Bottom line is that they are NOT your visitor or customer until the search engine links to you and the searcher visits your web site. They are the search engine's visitor or customer, NOT yours.

Now do you understand? :)

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by lots0cash
How is it deceptive to make your page more relevant to the SE’s for your targeted terms?Because you should be making your page more relevant to PEOPLE for the targeted terms.

Your page isn't more relevant to people if you cloak it. You haven't changed what people see. Tell me how the same page can be more relevant depending on content that people DON'T see, when that content is deceptively presented as if people DO see it.

[mncsc]

Lotso, enough of the semantics BS. This is not a trial.

Cloak, deceive, "get results", whatever you want to call it - it's your client, it's your reputation, it's your risk.

If you want a *free* listing with duration, do it within SE guidelines. If you don't care, do it any way you want. Simple enough?

[lots0cash]

Allan you are assuming that only the cloaked page has been made more relevant - this is not the case.

The cloaked page has been made more relevant to the SE’s and the page the user sees has been made more relevant to the user. The best of both worlds - and no one is deceived.

mncsc said,Lotso, enough of the semantics BS. Hmm... that’s what this debate is all about -semantics. If you don’t want to debate semantics don’t post.;)

As has been pointed out in this thread this is not a thread about the “ethics” of the Search Engines - this is a thread about the “ethics” of SEO. But I find the two very difficult separate. How can you be a "ethical" SEO if the SE’s are inherently “unethical”?

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by lots0cash
Allan you are assuming that only the cloaked page has been made more relevant - this is not the case.I'm not assuming anything. :)

It's impossible to make a cloaked page more relevant. It's only possible to make it appear more relevant.The cloaked page has been made more relevant to the SE’s and the page the user sees has been made more relevant to the user. The best of both worlds - and no one is deceived.Wrong. The SE is deceived. When cloaking, you are deliberately preventing the SE seeing the page you will present to its users. You are therefore obtaining the SE's visitors by deception. What you present to those visitors is irrelevant to whether you are obtaining them by deception or not, it's only of interest if we want to discuss just how deceptive you've been. Which I don't. :)

[Webmaster T]

[i]ban a site for doing whatever then let it back on top of the SERP after it has paid through the nose to get in adwords.

At the top of the SERPs I would assume a professional knows they are ads and not results. They are segregated from the results. Google would be potentially legally imperiled by denying access to the AdWords system for cloaking. It isn't related.

To think that Google bans sites so they purchase Adwords is pure crap and is the usual "conspiracies and half baked theories on technolgy" that spews from the mouth of every cloaker.

I put my clients first what is wrong(unethical) with that?


Do your clients know that you are putting their livilihood at risk?
Is that really putting them first or is it saying I'm a hack and I'll make that decision for them. Even if you tell them, do they **really** understand the risk. Are they aware that there is a possibility of de-listing? Probably not!

You also say that only google has a cloaking policy, that is categorically false. Inktomi and every major has on the site or put in the public domain their policies against cloaking. A true "professional" knows "all" of these as well. A professional doesn't hide behind and use "ignorance" as a defense.

You seem to take the view that your competency level and knowledge should be no higher than any other "casual" user.
That's what you intimate when you make statements about content guidelines like that. This is a "flimsy" excuse and just uttering it shows exactly how professional you are. I would assume that your clients would be dismayed to hear that. I'm sure they expect far more than that when they pay for a service!

As has been pointed out in this thread this is not a thread about the “ethics” of the Search Engines - this is a thread about the “ethics” of SEO. But I find the two very difficult separate. How can you be a "ethical" SEO if the SE’s are inherently “unethical”?

How are SE unethical? Ethics in this context is subverting content guidelines. Cloaking is unethical in that context. It is no less unethical than padding a clients bill. It is basically stealing, cloaking is "stealing" relevancy because they are contrary to guidelines. How can SE be unethical in that context, they make the rules! Afterall, it is their game and they **can make up the rules** as they go if that is their wish. Afterall, a listing in the Google index is absolutely free advertising. The "disciples of spam" treat them like they are the walls of a public washroom!

[lots0cash]

WT saidDo your clients know that you are putting their livilihood at risk?
Well WT you must have a problem with reading comprehension Or you just haven’t read this thread, in which case you shouldn’t post.
My whole arguement is to let the client know all the facts, then let the client make the decision.

Asd far as the rest of your post WT, “ouch, you have hurt me with your ignorance”.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by lots0cash
My whole arguement is to let the client know all the facts, then let the client make the decision.And the counter-argument is that you are giving the client a choice that amounts to this:

"Mr. Client, do you want to obtain visitors by deception? Because I can and will do that for you, if you think it's in your best interests."

Some SEOs won't educate the client about deceptive practises and won't perform them.

Some SEOs will educate the client about deceptive practises but won't perform them.

Some SEOs won't educate the client about deceptive practises and will perform them (this is worst of all, IMO).

You educate the client about deceptive practises and perform them. But the fact you've educated the client just makes the client a partner in your deception.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by Alan Perkins
You educate the client about deceptive practises and perform them. But the fact you've educated the client just makes the client a partner in your deception. [/B]
Couldn't agree more if I said it myself. Managing client expectations IMHO, expends half your energy, and definitely the part I most dislike! I don't want them to be anymore confused when they leave than when they came in. In my experience **most Clients** don't have the technical knowledge nor are they savvy enough about the interent to fully understand something like cloaking and the possible risks and ramafications.

I don't explain cloaking because I'm confident that I can get results without going to such extremes as "spoofing SE" into thinking it's relavant content. It's much simpler to just follow the rules and have the know how to get good results. Given time I will get there and they will stay there with absolutely no maintenance. Fresh content helps but IMHO, isn't always a must.

Lotso, I definitely have no reading comprehension problems in fact in your case I can read between the lines as well as fully comprehend what you have written. Your kind are an open book to me.

I've read the book in the telemarketing biz and re-read it in the SEO industry. There are real similarities between the tactics, morals and ethics of those running boiler room telemarketing companies and cloakers. Yes I have danced on the darkside, once, and only a fool makes the same mistake twice!;)

[lots0cash]

terry said,Lotso, I definitely have no reading comprehension problems in fact in your case I can read between the lines as well as fully comprehend what you have written. Your kind are an open book to me.<sarcasm> Geee terry, you must be the smartest person in the whole wide world.</sarcasm> If you would have this read the thread and understood it you would not have been making statements like you did, now would you?

Alan said,You educate the client about deceptive practises and perform them. But the fact you've educated the client just makes the client a partner in your deception.I like to think that they are a fully informed partner in their online success.

You think that it is “ethical” to keep knowledge from your clients - that’s up to you - But I would never do business with anyone that kept knowledge from me. Sounds to me like you all have a very low opinion of your clients intelligence and ability to make decisions for themselves and their business.

I can respect SEO’s that fully inform their clients then tell the clients there are things that they won’t do.
But on the other hand the SEO’s that decides not to tell there clients the whole picture, IMO is either incompetent and/or deceitful, and is not fully disclosing to the client only so they can keep the client’s money coming in.

terry said,Given time I will get there and they will stay there with absolutely no maintenance.sure you will...given enough time almost anything is possible. And it’s just your clients money why should you care how long it takes. <sarcasm> Now that’s ethical.</sarcasm>

Some SEO’s put the SE and what the SE wants first before the interests of their client. I find that completely unethical.

Some SEO’s don’t want to fully inform the client, I find that unethical.

[ihelpyou]

Well Lotso, your way of doing things and being a so-called SEO is completely and VERY wrong. Period.

For those of you reading this thread, there are 'Professional' seo's and unprofessional seo's.

ANY so-called SEO who uses 'deception' is Unprofessional. Period.

Any SEO who even believes a client should be so knowledgeable as to know what is right and wrong, is very wrong. The SEO should be the Expert, NOT the client.

You are not really this niave, are you Lotso?

You are oh so wrong Lotso. Very wrong. Your thinking, your way, all about it is wrong.

[Advisor]

Lotso, what you're saying makes no sense at all.

If you knew someone needed money, would you teach them how to rob a bank?

Would you tell your kids that there's a way to simply take candy from the store instead of paying for it?

If your answer to those questions is no, then why would you teach a client how to do something just as deceptive?

I know from your other posts here that you're not a deceitful kind of guy. So what's with all these garbage posts? You just trying to rile people up?

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yeah, other fora might enjoy your very bad posts in here lately Lotso, but we certainly are not one of them.

Actually, I don't think other forums would like them too much either. :rolleyes:

[lots0cash]

Doug said,ANY so-called SEO who uses 'deception' is Unprofessional. Period.Would not "deception" be considered withholding pertinent information, not fully informing the client, I believe it would be.

Look Doug you can call me all the names you want - makes no difference to me, just shows your mentality and your opinion is to say the least non-consequential to me. I know what I am and what I do, my clients are happy and they tell their friends and business partners about me and then their friends and business partners want to hire me and so it goes...

Jill said,I know from your other posts here that you're not a deceitful kind of guy. Thank you Jill... No I am not a deceitful person - As a matter of fact I pride myself on being honest to a fault. I guess that is why I find the idea of not fully informing your client just plain wrong.

I guess that is also why I also find the idea of putting the SE's interests before your clients to be the height of “unethical” behavior.

[ihelpyou]

Show me where I called you a name Lotso? Let me refresh you in what I said:
Well Lotso, your way of doing things and being a so-called SEO is completely and VERY wrong. Period.

For those of you reading this thread, there are 'Professional' seo's and unprofessional seo's.

ANY so-called SEO who uses 'deception' is Unprofessional. Period.

Any SEO who even believes a client should be so knowledgeable as to know what is right and wrong, is very wrong. The SEO should be the Expert, NOT the client.

You are not really this niave, are you Lotso?

You are oh so wrong Lotso. Very wrong. Your thinking, your way, all about it is wrong.
Tell me, where in there did I call you a name? You seem to be guilty about something? If the shoe fits, please where it. :)

[lots0cash]

Doug said,Your way is the Unethical way of SEO. You are Unprofessional So Doug you did not call me unethical or unprofessional? Not that I care what you think I just wanted to correct you ...again...

[Kal]

People, let's just agree to disagree. It's clear that most of us prefer to educate our clients about search engine compliant SEO while Lots0 prefers to show his clients ALL available SEO options including those that could possibly risk a site and undermine the relevance of the search engines long term. That's his choice and he has the right to make that choice. Let's leave it at that :).

[Advisor]

Okay then Lotso, then why not answer my questions?

Is it unethical not to explain to your children how they can easily slip candy into their pockets when no one's looking?

Should we teach that to them?

By your definition, we should.

Explain to me, please, how this is any different than what you're saying we should do with clients.

Why in the world should any Professional SEO need to tell their clients about ways to deceive the search engines. They shouldn't do that any more than they should teach their kids how to steal.

Sure, if they want to say something like, "there are deceitful methods of getting high rankings, which of course we won't use," then there's nothing wrong with that. But there should never, ever, ever be an obligation to educate clients or anyone else in how to deceive the search engines, nor the corner store.

Jill

[MJR]

ANY so-called SEO who uses 'deception' is Unprofessional. Period. I agree with this statement to a point. I agree that if you are using deception that is AGAINST that SE's TOS or even the SEO "industry standards", even though the idea for SEO standards is some what open for debate, then it is unprofessional. Many SEO's use a "degree" of "acceptable" deception, no matter how minor it would seem, and even though that may be considered "unethical that doesn't necessarily mean it unprofessional. I think that there is a difference :)

[lots0cash]

Well Jill the reason I did not answer your question was first, I thought it was a rhetorical question.
Second, I did not agree with the analogy. Teaching children to steal is IMO not even close to what we are talking about.

I don’t see getting a top SERP as stealing from the SE’s - much like the SE’s don’t see taking and using copyrighted material to make money with as stealing from Webmasters.

[Advisor]

...and even though that may be "unethical that doesn't necessarily mean it unprofessional. Actually, I think it's the other way around.

It may not be unethical, but it may be unprofessional.

Ethics are an individual thing. Professionalism is a group thing. Adhering to common industry standards.

We don't have any, however!

Jill

[Advisor]

Okay then, Lotso. How about teaching your kids to deceive their teachers?

Is that something we should do?

Jill

[MJR]

Jill: I guess that comes down to ones interpretation of professional :)

[lots0cash]

Jill the teachers are not taking children’s work without permission and making money off of it. Not the same thing at all.

[Advisor]

The taking work without permission has got to be the lamest excuse for an argument on this subject ever. I can't believe that it continues to be used.

You and everybody else are more than free to tell google and the other engines not to index your site. Interesting how all those who say the engines are using their stuff without permission are the first ones to complain when their site is suddenly NOT being used without permission. (Not talking specifically about you, Lotso.)

Sorry, but it's lame, lame and double lame. And simply doesn't wash, nor cut it.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Matter of fact, I think I'll tell Google and ALL the other search engines to delist your site Lotso. Being that they did not ask you for permission to list you, I think I'll do just that. :cool:

[MJR]

If you do that to Lotso Doug, let me know because I want to buy some popcorn and bring a lawnchair to watch the butt-kick'n you're likely to get when he drives to your house...lol ;) :)

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Of course I'm joking. But the reality is, he and many other spammers all have the same argument which as Jill's says is very lame. It is lame. But at the same time, using that argument and they should be prepared for someone to call their own bluff. :)

[Dave B]

Lotso, I do not want to go off topic but in an effort to understand better... are you the same lotso that used to post on the CJU forums a couple years back?

Dave

[ihelpyou]

I would guess yes Dave.

Lotso made a conscience about turn for the worse to endorse spam about 4 months ago or so.

[scottiecl]

... Any action taken solely to increase a pages ranking in the SE’s is unwanted by the SE’s, as to what to call it IMO that’s up to the individual or the SE.

...

My argument is, anything done to improve human user experience will also improve your position in the SE’s. What are the SE’s algo’s trying to accomplish anyway? They try to think like a human to be able to decide if a page is “relevant” to the human doing the search. So you increase the relevancy/ranking (in the opinion of the SE’s Algo’s) of your page by increasing the relevancy of the page for the human user.
…So if you have created a page that humans and SE’s both deem to be “relevant” you will have created a page that will rank very high in the SE’s.

Do I consider the SE’s algo’s when I change the code or copy of a page, of course, IMO you would be a fool not to. However my main concern is what the human user thinks (was the page informative, useful, entertaining, etc) because in the long run that’s what the Algo’s are trying to emulate, the human user.

http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=44312#post44312

From the old Lots0cash...

[lots0cash]

Jill I think you are promoting a double standard here - . It is OK for the SE’s to break the copyright law but it is not OK for me to ignore what the SE’s want. I don’t think it’s lame argument, I think it’s an argument you can’t defend so you call it lame.

Why should I have to tell the SE’s not to index my site - don’t you think they should ask for permission first before they index?

So Jill what you are saying is it’s OK for the SE’s to do whatever they want - break laws, steal copyrighted material, gather information - But it is not OK for me and others to ignore what the SE’s want. Very much a double standard Jill.

Doug said,...I think I'll tell Google and ALL the other search engines to delist your site Lotso...Go ahead Doug, tell the SE’s to delist my hobby site - do you really think they are
going to listen to you? I don’t... I think you have delusions of power Doug...

DaveB said, ...are you the same lotso that used to post on the CJU forums a couple years back?I am not sure what mean by CJU - If you mean commission junctions old forum then yes that was me. I think I posted there less than 10 times. I wanted answers about cj’s association with thiefware/scumware like ezula and gator and cj did not want to give them, so I left their forum and their program. ( I have no idea how this info will help you understand this debate.)

[scottiecl]

Originally posted by Lots0cash
Selling someone something that you know is going to cause them problems, without telling them or telling them in an offhand way, is a scam – telling a person “buy my software it will put you in the top ten”, but knowing that the person buying your product is going to get banned in a short period of time is IMO a scam, con, rip-off, swindle and has nothing to do with the code on Doug’s or anyone else’s page.


http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=44329#post44329

Another past quote I agree with that doesn't seem to mesh with your latest posts. ??

[ihelpyou]

Go ahead Doug, tell the SE’s to delist my hobby site - do you really think they are
going to listen to you? I don’t... I think you have delusions of power Doug...
Your hobby site? Is this the same hobby site with lots of affiliate programs on it and all about lotteries, etc?

Don't tempt me Lotso. We can see if there is any "power" there if you wish? :) And don't take a snippet of my post and quote me from it. Take the full context of things.



Yeah Scottie, we have a whole slew of former posts by Lots0cash in here. Even recent ones from 4 months ago when he was Not a spammer. :)

[ihelpyou]

Let's talk seriously Lotso. Why did you make this move for the worse when it comes to our industry?

Did the guy over there change your mind for you? I know you did not realize what he was made up of and did not know all the stuff you now know, but why are you listening to him?

I seriously would like to know what happened to you. You were always a help in here and made good posts. Now you are not.

[lots0cash]

Doug said,Lotso made a conscience about turn for the worse to endorse spam about 4 months ago or so. endorse spam - I have never endorsed spam - I have never even ran an email campaign of any kind and I dislike email spam as much as the next person. I have never sent a spam email in my life so calling me a spammer is inaccurate.

Scottie, I still believe what I wrote back then - it is just I no longer believe that google or some other SE’s are the Webmasters friend and should be treated accordingly. And I don’t see how what I wrote back then is much different from what I am writing now.<added>in the last post you made Scottie - I
talk about full disclosure - I am still talking about that</added>

Doug I am not tempting you I am telling you to go ahead and tell the SE’s what ever you want. tell your supposedly close buddy at google to delist my hobby site, we will see what happens - and since when is running affiliate programs to pay for hosting wrong? At least I don’t have a bunch of misspellings all
over my site just to attract visitors.

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Close buddy? Too funny as you must have got that from Massa. Don't we all wish.

BUT, again, don't tempt me. You can clearly read in my posts above that 'was' kidding. If you keep on keeping on with your nonsense and ridiculous/unhelpful posts, I will see what I can do. I'm very sure I can find spam on your site of some kind to report. Would you like me to try?

You did not answer my questions at all. Don't avoid the issue. I really want the answers to them.

[lots0cash]

I'm very sure I can find spam on your site of some kind to report. Would you like me to try? Yes I would.

[ihelpyou]

I'm giving you one last chance to answer my post. Here it is again:
Let's talk seriously Lotso. Why did you make this move for the worse when it comes to our industry?

Did the guy over there change your mind for you? I know you did not realize what he was made up of and did not know all the stuff you now know, but why are you listening to him?

I seriously would like to know what happened to you. You were always a help in here and made good posts. Now you are not.
Answer those questions or I'm closing this thread. It's getting boring and tiring to me with nothing helpful coming from it.

[lots0cash]

Why do you want to make this personal Doug? This was a debate about SEO ethics, now you want to make it personal.

I have no intention of answering your questions - for one they have no bearing on what was being debated. And for another the questions are really stupid - kind of like the questions you would hear on some daytime TV talkshow.

Go ahead and close this thread - turn me in for spam (even though you can’t find any) do whatever you want - you are just showing everyone the kind of person you really are.

[ihelpyou]

Thread closed.