61 replies to this topic

[projectphp]

I figure at least some of the people who claim that there's nothing wrong with doing all you can to benefit your clients, even at the expense of many others, actually believe it.

Touche Bob! Newbie spammers, however, have access to plenty of the "right" information these days, and yet some still spam

[Alan Perkins]

IMHO, that makes weight and other health issues (especially smoking) a public concern, as bad dietary choices have a cost to everyone, both in direct cost and indirect loss of other possible benefits. That is probably worse than spamming, which has an effect only on those connected to the Internet who use a search engine.

If you're saying that eating a burger is worse than spamming a search engine, then I don't agree.

If you're saying that purchasing a product from an unethical company, thereby supporting that company, is worse than spamming a search engine, I still don't agree.

I do agree that being an unethical company, that deceives its customers about the effects of purchasing or using its products, is on a par with spamming.

All this would change if, as Alan has claimed, spamming is illegal.

I've only claimed that some forms of spamming are illegal.

[bwelford]

This is a fascinating topic.

One thought I had is that it gets more complicated when you're selling something where a fraction of your customers may get addicted. That's true for selling cigarettes, where the majority get addicted, or selling alcoholic beverages or running gambling casinos, where smaller fractions may get addicted. I think responsible marketing requires that you handle the problems you may create and not just run for the hills with the profits. So if spamming search engines is a problem, then someone needs to do some 'responsible marketing' around this. Seems to me the search engines have the biggest stake here.

Another thought comes from the current best-seller, "Freakonomics". Economic incentives probably work better than attempting to ban things. Does that have a part to play in all this?

[Alan Perkins]

I think responsible marketing requires that you handle the problems you may create and not just run for the hills with the profits.

I agree. It also requires avoiding problems before they are created, now and again.

When all is said and done, you can't escape from the fact that search marketing is marketing and there are well-established bad practices in marketing - deception, for example.

[cre8pc]

Scottie wrote:

You can crusade to shut down McD's.... or you can launch your own attractive, inexpensive food establishment with healthy alternatives... or you can get involved in getting the word out about better choices.

On the SEO side, you can swear vengeance on any who don't see the issues exactly the same way you do, spend your energy in negative ways attacking those you think do wrong.... or you can be a positive example demonstrating and speaking out about how things work when done correctly.

(Boldface emphasis mine.)

Education is key here, and so is providing examples of the consequences of actions. The latter is used for propaganda and can be slanted to fit anyone's goals.

Insisting that something be done "correctly", the first time, doesn't happen in some environments (software application development and QA input, for example) and is purposely overlooked for convenience-sake (USA school lunch programs, for example.)

Every parent hopes their kid will choose the salad aisle of the school cafeteria vs. the fast-food [insert franchise name here] section. They can *educate* and explain the long-term *consequences* of eating the *correct* food, but in the end, the choices boil down to time, who is sitting where and which line the cute boy/girl happens to be standing it at the moment.

The same, rather weak, motivations inspire SEO spam ("I have to get this site on top fast"; "We have a seriously competitive search term(s)").

In the heat of the moment, some disastrous choices are made all the time. Some people live for risk, are thrilled by it or simply don't consider any of their choices a risk in the first place - even after they research consequences or long term effects.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with dictating someone else's choices. Everyone's lessons are unique to them. And, there are always variables to consider that may or may not have been foreseen. Sometimes you're really starving and McDee's is the only place everybody in the car agrees on without a huge argument

[Jill]

Personally, I'm not comfortable with dictating someone else's choices. Everyone's lessons are unique to them.

Yep, I completely agree with this, and I think it was the crux of Scottie's original article.

People have free will, and one hopes -- a brain and a little common sense. They are welcome to choose the dark side or the light side. It is THEIR choice to make.

If they are too lazy or dumb to do at least a modicum of due diligence regarding the choices they make, then imo, they deserve whatever consequence happens.

[Alan Perkins]

Personally, I'm not comfortable with dictating someone else's choices.

Yep, I agree with this too. I'm also not comfortable with others limiting or dictating my choices, or the choices of other searchers, yet this is exactly what spammers try to do when attempting to usurp the search engines' role in the calculation of relevancy.

Burger-eaters, on the other hand, don't insist that I must eat burgers. I keep coming back to personal choices versus choices that affect a wider community.

[qwerty]

Burger eaters themselves don't make a big difference in other people's lives, but they affect the size of the meat industry, and that industry certainly affects the environment, the general health of the nation, the water supply, the price of grain, etc.

In other words, it's a pretty good analogy

[Alan Perkins]

Meat eaters affect the size of the meat industry, not burger eaters per se. What are you saying, that eating meat is somehow equivalent to spamming? With where this conversation is heading, we humans may as well all kill ourselves to prevent the terrible damage we are doing to the planet.

I don't think individuals choosing to eat burgers is a particularly good analogy for spammers choosing to deceive search engines and searchers. They both involve making choices, but after that it falls apart. A burger eater chooses to eat a burger even though it may be bad for them. A spammer chooses to spam because they think it's going to be good for them (at the expense of others).

[qwerty]

My point is that a single person making a single choice means very little. They may (in the case of the burger) do a tiny bit of harm to themselves and they may (in the case of the spam) do a little harm to themselves and others. But looking at a bigger picture, where we see large numbers of people making either of those choices, we have things happening that are IMO clearly bad for us all.

I don't mean that to say that people shouldn't be permitted to make their own choices. I'd just like them to think about the bigger picture.

[projectphp]

A burger eater chooses to eat a burger even though it may be bad for them. A spammer chooses to spam because they think it's going to be good for them (at the expense of others).

So, accepting that spamming is worse than eating a burger, how do we deal with spammers and spamming?

[Jill]

Seems to me it's not OUR job to deal with them to begin with. Isn't it the search engine's job?

[Alan Perkins]

So, accepting that spamming is worse than eating a burger, how do we deal with spammers and spamming?

I guess we each choose our own ways.

Like Scottie, I think good education is the key. Give people the knowledge to make informed choices. If they then make the wrong choices, that's their problem and, if it enters my sphere of influence, it becomes my problem too. But I don't have the time or inclination to make it my problem when it doesn't affect me, other than providing that good education in the first place.

[mcanerin]

Seems to me it's not OUR job to deal with them to begin with. Isn't it the search engine's job?

I think it's clear that it has to be *someones" job, search engine or not.

I was just reading a great interview with the CNN "Ethics guy" and he told the reporter that they had done a survey to see why people felt they should be ethical - ie what are the reasons for being ethical?

The overwhelming response was personal and self referential- "so I can sleep at night" "so my kids respect me" "so I can look at myself in the mirror" etc.

The ethics guy pointed out that was a very bad trend. He pointed out that there are a LOT of people that have no problem at all sleeping at night after doing terrible things. Basing ethics on self reference is a formula for letting the worst of society do whatever they want.

Since it's a social issue, a "big picture" issue, then it's society, and those affected in the "big picture" that have to do the enforcing. To use an extreme example, a terrorist may honestly consider blowing up innocent people to be ethical by their personal code and opinion, but that honest opinion doesn't count to society and their victems.

Expecting people to police themselves is like expecting the fox to guard the henhouse, IMO. Many people do (like myself and most of the people at HR), but the ones that do so voluntarily are not the ones we need to be worrying about, I think.

Ian

[Leann_Pass]

A thread that incorporates McDonald's Spam and Terrorists? Uh Hmmm
Well, I started at the bottom.

a survey to see why people felt they should be ethical - ie what are the reasons for being ethical?

The overwhelming response was personal and self referential- "so I can sleep at night" "so my kids respect me" "so I can look at myself in the mirror" etc.

The ethics guy pointed out that was a very bad trend. He pointed out that there are a LOT of people that have no problem at all sleeping at night after doing terrible things. Basing ethics on self reference is a formula for letting the worst of society do whatever they want.

I absoultely disagree with this "ethics guy".

How and why can it be bad for people to : 1) have a conscience that helps dictate their actions and/or even their lack of action 2) be concerned about doing "the right thing" and not causing harm to others 3) to have more self respect and feel good about themselves when they have done what they "believe" to be honest/right?

If, and that is a big IF, having a conscience is a new "trend" then it is a great trend IMO and hope it continues.

How and why would it be better for people to 1) base their actions, positive or negative, solely on legalities 2) do 'whatever', even if it harms others, just because there is no law against it 3) do 'whatever' because they believe they can get away with it?

Since it's a social issue, a "big picture" issue, then it's society, and those affected in the "big picture" that have to do the enforcing. To use an extreme example, a terrorist may honestly consider blowing up innocent people to be ethical by their personal code and opinion, but that honest opinion doesn't count to society and their victems.

Yes, that is an extreme example. Terrorists are a breed of their own, are they not? They are raised and trained to do great harm to others. They also have no respect, regard or fear for the laws of any country. They set out to break those laws routinely. This goes way beyond a matter of ethics.....these are people who focus on and participate in criminal activity and may not "sleep well" if they didn't do ENOUGH harm.

Expecting people to police themselves is like expecting the fox to guard the henhouse, IMO. Many people do (like myself and most of the people at HR), but the ones that do so voluntarily are not the ones we need to be worrying about, I think.

That is what laws are for, IMO. Laws simply lay down the lowest form of expectation and responsibility for those who don't have the ability to know for themselves. And to protect those of us who do have the ability to guide our own actions from those who would cause harm. People who are guided by a sense of right/wrong and compassion have little need to worry about what the law says because their own concscience and concern causes them to rise above and beyond the expections (and boundaries) of any law.


For those who don't have conscience/compassion/restraint OR any concern for the law, well that is what jails are for!

I don't think any of the above has to do with spam at all, but ....

As for spammers, I see them more as heavy risk takers (in many cases lacking conscience) than criminals. (Although, I will add that sometimes is it to the point of being criminal, especially if and when it involves an unknowing client.)

As for spam, I agree with Barry that the search eninges are the "most" affected, and with Scottie that educating people is the best we can do, and with Jill that, at the end of the day, spam monitoring and abolishing is the search engines job - not ours.


If the search engines did their job, spam would not be rewarded. If spam was not rewarded, the spammers would have to find another line of work. I realize that new "kinds" of spam would pop up....but if the SE's stayed on their toes, which they should, the new spam efforts wounldn't be rewarded long enough for it to benefit the spammers.

No or minimal reward = No or minimal spam.

Leann