Blogging Ethics Question

[KeyWord]

So let's say that a person has a blogger and offers a service to get people spidered by Google faster than the normal free submit ... would people think this is unethical? spam?

Is the blogger spaming?

Is the customer of the blogger spamming?

[scottiecl]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

[PeterStone]

I'm not aware of the set of ethics you mentioned, but yes, that's spam.

What has helped guide me on occasion is to ask myself if I'm making a change in order to artificially inflate my importance to a given search engine or to increase actual relevance to a person (visitor). If I'm increasing my importance to a human being, I'm probably on solid ground.


Peter

[ihelpyou]

I think we see why Google may be thinking about putting all blogs into their own little SERPS. :)

[peter_d]

Oh, couldn't resist this one ;)

Blogs will not be removed wholesale from the serps. For starters, define "blog". A site with news headings? That would make The Register a blog. Not to mention searchenginewatch. Should those sites be removed hmmm?

News sites haven't been removed from the serps. Neither have forums. Neither have newsletters posted as .htm files. Neither will blogs.

offers a service to get people spidered by Google faster than the normal free submit

That person doesn't appear to know what he is talking about.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by KeyWord
So let's say that a person has a blogger and offers a service to get people spidered by Google faster than the normal free submit ... would people think this is unethical?IMO yes, because it wouldn't work, so it would be a scam. It would also be comparable to the SearchKing case.spam?Yes, for the reasons given by PeterStone.Is the blogger spaming?Spamming, yes. Blogging, no.Is the customer of the blogger spamming?Yes if they solicit the service in any way, no if they don't. Given that you said "customer" rather than "victim", yes.

[KeyWord]

WARNING: LONG POST (3936 characters)


That person doesn't appear to know what he is talking about.

Actually there is no such person that I know of, but one probably exists. I am toying with the idea of learning about bloggers and the idea of getting indexed faster is VERY attractive.

I'm an advocate of doing the right thing. Sometimes it's hard to see the real value.

--

What I am trying to do is formulate a rule by which you can guide yourself when performing SEO or considering strategies. I hope this rule will be able to guide me and others.

Here's the current workings:

I'll call it: "Visitor Rule" (VR)

When building or modifying a web site (or sites) on the Internet for which you want to attract visitors from search engines, the goal of the construction or modifications should be to primarily benefit the site visitors.

If the construction or modification to the web site (or sites) is solely or primarily for the purpose of gaining higher search engine rankings, and secondarily providing value to the site visitor, then such construction or modification is spam, and should not be performed.

"Supporting" Examples:
1. DO use browser readable text instead of images to present your content. This helps the visitor as it is faster to download, more accessible, usually more readable, copy pasteable, etc. Incidentally spiders can crawl this better than an image (if they had to crawl images, it could be done).

2. DO use text based links. This helps the reader as it is more obvious what the link is related to. Secondly spiders like this because it gives more information about the link.

3. DO NOT use black text on a black background. Since putting black text on black background does nothing for your visitor, and may actually hurt your visitor if it is hidden, then this breaks "VR" and is therefore SPAM

4. DO NOT use a blogger to get indexed sooner. If you use a blogger for the purpose of getting indexed sooner while not considering if your audience would be better served by having a blogger, then you are breaking the "VR" rule and you are therefore SPAMming. (example would be if you had a new site you wanted indexed fast)

If you were going to post regular fresh content, such as news, you will be providing fresh new content and therefore should start the blogger, as it will serve your visitor and should be.

--

"Not Sure If this Supports" Examples:
1. DO use table trick. Table trick helps you present your content first to a spider, then links. This reduces the likelihood of not getting your full content crawled (spider getting sent off on a link or such). This "trick" doesn't really do much for the reader at all or does it?

--

Exception to the "VR" rule.

I'm not sure how to describe it, but dynamic pages can provide better content to visitors. However I noticed that static pages are preferred over dynamic pages.

Therefore by suggesting DO use static over dynamic pages, you can't say that static pages better serve the visitor than dynamic ones.

So I guess there is some confusion to be ironed out to make the "VR" rule a bit more clear.

--

Long term value of the "VR" rule.

In the long term, this rule is what you should go by. As search engine algorithms and human editors improve their ability to detect and eliminate SPAM and ranking abusers, sites that serve their visitors will, and should, have the highest positions in a search.

--

Maybe there is no "exact" answer, but a decent guide will help clear up lots of confusion that exists in these forums and SEO in general.

BTW, if a more clear definition or discussion already exists on this, feel free to point me. I'm assuming one doesn't exist, for it would have been pointed to many times.

--

Don't know where to take this, but any thoughts are welcome!

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by KeyWord
BTW, if a more clear definition or discussion already exists on this, feel free to point me. I'm assuming one doesn't exist, for it would have been pointed to many times. I wrote this some time ago:The Classification of Search Engine Spam (http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/). Given what you've written above, I think you may enjoy reading it. :)

[KeyWord]

Thanks for the article Alan!

Suppose search engines did not exist. Would the technique still be used in the same way?

1. Table trick would not be used, so I guess one could say the table trick is spam.

2. Domains with keywords and files and folders with key words would also be iffy. For example, I wouldnt name a file "how-to-get-top-engine-rankings.html" but rather "top-rankings.html".

3. Blogger issue is obviously cleared up, as you wouldn't use a blogger unless you were planning to provide fresh content on a regular basis.

I'll be keeping this rule in mind !

[PeterStone]

Originally posted by KeyWord
[b]
Maybe there is no "exact" answer, but a decent guide will help clear up lots of confusion that exists in these forums and SEO in general.

Don't know where to take this, but any thoughts are welcome!

I think there may be some hypocracy in the SEO world. (The rest of the world, too).

If you'll just get really selfish for a second and not worry about morality issues, I'll give you my view and you can toss it or use it.

The difference between competant versus incompetant SEO is equal to one click on the compass over the course of a long journey.

If you blog to romance search engines, ultimately, the quality of your blog will degenerate.

Low quality content on your site would hurt you. Peter_d's blog is a great example of what happens when someone is interested in blogging.

Look at the amount of work that goes into his blog. If he wanted good SERP placement for a web site, it wouldn't require as much work as he puts into his blog.

Adding fresh content to your page everyday would, (just my opinion) call the spiders out the same as using a blog to fool them.

It doesn't require any more work to do competant SEO than it does to use tricks. Using tricks appeals to a part of human nature - the "I'm getting away with something" side. "I'm an outlaw". : )

The heck of it is that the "real" way, or safe way to optimise a site is no more difficult or challenging than using bags of tricks, usually.

How is learning to hide text more difficult than learning where to place it in a manner that's consistent with google's TOS?

One way is breaking a "rule" and the other is obeying a "rule".

How is setting up the intermediate step of using a blog any easier than simply adding fresh, relevant content to your site directly?

One way is breaking a rule... obeying a rule = vanilla.

The outlaw version tends to be more fun and seems like less work, I'm guessing. That "I'm an outlaw" routine is the click on the compass I mentioned.

Part of that character bent is that going the outlaw route seems hopeful to those who buy into it. Conversely, going the approved route tends to seem hopeless. Others can rank high, but not me unless I "cheat".

Over the long haul, you'll end up way, way off your course. Your web site will be so corrupt (to the algo), you won't know where to begin to clean it up. Eventually, your house of cards will fall. Since each crawl refines the SE's definition of your site, you will get caught, eventually if not immediately.

Be totally selfish. Don't give morality another thought. Compare, side by side both techniques and tell me which is easier. Now, tell me which is more practical.


Peter

[KeyWord]

Good points Peter.

Lots of the posts I read here at IHelpYou can be resolved with some basic understanding of proper SEO guidelines like which you are explaining.

I'm trying to grasp those principles.

So thanks for input.

[stevegg]

I've been following this thread (and others on this borad, for that matter) with great interest.

I'm wondering exactly why using blogs to get a new site listed quicker than usual would be considered spamming? It does indeed take advantage of a "loophole" google is aware of, but a website is still going to rank really low if it's designed badly.

It's one thing to use a blog to get listed fast, but another thing to get listed high for its keywords. Taking advantage of blogs simply gets a website found by google faster but it won't get a page ranked higher than it otherwise would be if they had to wait 3 months to get on google.

So does that make sense (to me it does) or am I missing something? (I'm honestly curious).

Thanks in advance,

-Steve

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums Steve! :hi:

It's a combination of things that a spammer might use with his/her blog.

Just the fact they are using a blog to get listed is not the whole story. From there it is not much a leap to simply add your phrases to your ramblings:

"This is my 'widget' blog. I love 'widgets'. Blue, green, any kind of "widgets'. etcetcetc

Ya see? :)

[KeyWord]

Stevegg, I've felt exactly the same way at the start of this post ... hence the reason for the post.

I find it sometimes tough to tell if a technique is SPAM or not.

One easy way to determine if a technique is SPAM, as described in Alan's article, (http://www.ebrandmanagement.com/whitepapers/spam-classification/
) (I recommend reading) is by asking yourself:

"Suppose search engines did not exist. Would the technique still be used in the same way?"

If the answer is no, you would not use the technique. Therefore, by using the technique, you are spamming.

---

So you (stevegg) wrote:

I'm wondering exactly why using blogs to get a new site listed quicker than usual would be considered spamming?

Let's see if I have learned the lesson properly.

Why I think it's spam:

Bloggers are for the purpose of presenting news-type fresh content on a regular, probably at least weekly, basis. (please correct me if I'm wrong on defining a blogger)

If you use a blogger to only get listed sooner and are not going to post fresh regular content, then you are mis-leading Googlobot and people reading your blogger. You are mis-leading them because they will expect regular content. In addition, you will disappoint your site visitors who are expecting fresh content from your blogger. Googlebot will not really care yet ... but eventually it may ... and you may get penalized for false claims on your site (one type of SPAM).

AND by Alan's article's rule of thumb so to speak, since you are not posting regular content, you wouldn't have a blog.

If you use a blogger and are producing fresh new content ... well then fine, you should get indexed more frequently.

Why you shouldn't do it:
(why spamming in general shouldn't be done)

In the long run, Google, assuming they will continue to reduce spam and improve search results, will improve their technology to "find" spammers. Maybe Google will see you are blogging, then record your blogging claim, then check to see if you produce new content over a time period. If you don't, then Google will penalize you.

Google would of course not try to do this unless blog-spamming was in high enough abuse ... that is significantly affected their search results.

Who knows how long the long run is, but as was stated by PeterStone time spent might be better spent on more surely customer oriented, long lasting information like writing a nice article around your keywords. That article will never be SPAM ... unless you e-mail it to me without asking me ! :p

--

[quote]It doesn't require any more work to do competant SEO than it does to use tricks ... The heck of it is that the "real" way, or safe way to optimise a site is no more difficult or challenging than using bags of tricks, usually.[/i]

(BTW, Peter, I really like how you described the feeling of not being able to compete unless you cheat. Recognizing this temptation is important to avoiding those actions)

[stevegg]

Ahhhhh... Now this whole blog issue makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up - in one or two sentences, I might add <G> - and thanks for the forum welcome.

So, just so I have this staright, the problem is that people are entering keywords into their blogs, so those blogs get ranked high in the Search Engines for those KW, while legitimate and informative websites under those same KW are being pushed down... oui?

Is it just Google or are other SE also spidering blogs and having a similar problem?

Regards,

-Steve

[stevegg]

"Keyword" - thanks for your reply. What you say makes a lot of sense and I agree whole heartedly. Anyone who takes a shortcut that is unfair or adversely affects others (i.e. keyword blogging that pushes down the rankings of a higher quality website) is certainly a spam imo too.

For the record, I'm a firm believer in producing quality (and KW rich <G>) websites to achieve high SE rankings. Even before I really studied specifically what google looks for in websites, I was getting virtually every client a top 10 position for their keywords simply by producing well structured and informative sites...

I just read Alan's article and also agree with what he says in it. Rules to live by to be sure.

Thanks for responding! :)

-Steve

[KeyWord]

I'm on the steep part of the learning curve (high initial learning) so I'll probably have some terms off and likely be generalizing things, so ... If the experts could validate, that would help.

KeyWord = Kenn ... I should go get that handle I suppose ... but this one is Key Word rich !

[mmmpph]

Why you shouldn't do it:
(why spamming in general shouldn't be done)

In the long run, Google, assuming they will continue to reduce spam and improve search results, will improve their technology to "find" spammers. Maybe Google will see you are blogging, then record your blogging claim, then check to see if you produce new content over a time period. If you don't, then Google will penalize you.

Can't see it happening... too complicated and too much risk of damaging results. How does G know that the blog belongs to you unless you tell them? Just because the blog links to you? Maybe you've just abandoned the blog. What if you only make monthly or quarterly entries? What is a blog... is your site's "News" page a blog? What if nothing is happening at your company, therefore no news... does that make you a spammer? What if it is external to your site and you don't link back to it? If that's the case, how about putting a link to everyone of your competitors, just to get them penalized? The worst case scenario is that the link and text is considered worthless, much the same as a link from an FFA page. Don't see that happening either considering that Google just bought Blogger. I have no idea what they spent or why but they didn't do it devalue it by making it irrelevant to SERPs.

Even getting there is tough though. How does the SE know that it is a blog, not just a long page of relevant text? It would virtually require human intervention and judgment on which sites or pages for that matter constitute a blog.

Much hypocrisy abounds in this business anyway. The ol' "Would you do it if there were no SEs?", would pretty much rule out one the job functions of just about everyone on this board and turn those who have the talent into copywriters or "People Optimizers". There's not a thing wrong with SEO, as it is legitimate, necessary and expected. There are certainly lines that need to be established. But you can't get away with the above as a rule while you are sitting there optimizing titles, placing keywords, alt tags, optimizing headers and so forth. The average reader has no clue or cares what your file name is or whether the paragraph has an H1 tag or is just in Bold at 14 pt type. You do this strictly to manipulate the SE into giving you better results. If this is what you do then great! But don't make up silly and overly broad rules. You may fall into its broad definition.

We've turned spam into a moral thing. It's got nothing to do with morality and it can only legitimately be defined as that which violates the rules of the search engines. Therefore, it's not immoral, just stupid because it gets you banned. The only way that you can define spam is 'that which the powers that be say that you should not do because it damages the legitimacy of their results and they haven't figured out a way to deal with it'. Therefore, what was considered spam yesterday (illegitimate use of keywords in the metatags) is only irrelevant today and what is not penalized today may be considered spam tomorrow. Your best guess is to try and figure out what the SE will do tomorrow and try to stay away from it today.

[ihelpyou]

True.

That's why I think Google will put all blogs into their own little button on the search page and label it ... "Search Blogs". That would solve things quickly. :)

[PeterStone]

Originally posted by mmmpph
Much hypocrisy abounds in this business anyway. The ol' "Would you do it if there were no SEs?", would pretty much rule out one the job functions of just about everyone on this board and turn those who have the talent into copywriters or "People Optimizers". There's not a thing wrong with SEO, as it is legitimate, necessary and expected. There are certainly lines that need to be established. But you can't get away with the above as a rule while you are sitting there optimizing titles, placing keywords, alt tags, optimizing headers and so forth. The average reader has no clue or cares what your file name is or whether the paragraph has an H1 tag or is just in Bold at 14 pt type. You do this strictly to manipulate the SE into giving you better results. If this is what you do then great! But don't make up silly and overly broad rules. You may fall into its broad definition.

We've turned spam into a moral thing. It's got nothing to do with morality and it can only legitimately be defined as that which violates the rules of the search engines. Therefore, it's not immoral, just stupid because it gets you banned. The only way that you can define spam is 'that which the powers that be say that you should not do because it damages the legitimacy of their results and they haven't figured out a way to deal with it'. Therefore, what was considered spam yesterday (illegitimate use of keywords in the metatags) is only irrelevant today and what is not penalized today may be considered spam tomorrow. Your best guess is to try and figure out what the SE will do tomorrow and try to stay away from it today. [/B]

It's just my belief that google will be able to distinguish (mathmatically evaluate) blogs from other content. Again, just my belief.

Hypocracy - well said.

Morality - well said.

There are valid mitigating factors that serve as points of departure in these discussions. I think that's where we (universal "we") get into the complex discussions that have no resolve.

If I understand correctly, one of those mitigating factors is that the web is a community. How I effect you is a moral jumping off point.

Morality is a very personal and private institution within the individual. Even if you write pages about your morality, I won't quite "get" your meaning and how you appreciate the texture of your world through your moral eyes.

That I don't understand your morality, doesn't mean (in my morality) that it's ok for me to blow off your morality or not consider you in my definition of my (really, our shared) world.

Especially since it's pretty easy to accomodate you in my neighborhood if we can agree on certain ground rules in that shared (virtual) space.

"Don't act to decieve" is the primary message I get from people who go off on discussions about morality, professionalism, ethics. I think that's the basic ground rule that they are insistent on establishing. That's not so bad, in my opinion. (Side note): They often come off as holier than thou which in itself is contrary to the dignity of the other individual and amounts to hypocracy by the very nature of the arguement. They accomplish what they preach against. No?


Peter