62 replies to this topic

[Jill]

I say no, we don't need nor want search marketing standards, and I've provide 4 reasons why.

Please read my Search Engine Land article and let me know what you think:

We Don't Need SEO Standards!

I have long been a proponent of performing SEO in such a way that satisfies all stakeholders, i.e., the client, the search engines, and the internet as a whole. My feeling is that the better we make websites, the better it will be for everyone. Through the years I have developed SEO methods that not only meet that criteria, they also work wonderfully to increase targeted search engine traffic. In fact, the techniques I developed and refined over the years have been adopted by tens of thousands of others who share my belief that SEO is about making websites better, not about tricking the search engines.

So you'd think I'd be a big proponent of standards... but I'm not.

[incrediblehelp]

Sure we can have some standards like each page should have a title attribute, but I though people from the W3 already tell us that? With the customization for each client, the different approaches all of us take to get to the end goals for clients and the lack of agreement on so many different SEO "techniques", it would be hard to create SEO standards that any of us would actually adhere to.

Standardizing SEO is like standardizing Art.

Edited by incrediblehelp, 27 March 2008 - 12:29 PM.

[ABAR]

nice article Jill!

[Randy]

Hit the nail on the head again Jill.

[mcanerin]

I started responding in full here but the post got way too long (and the article isn't posted in this forum anyway), so I posted the response on my blog instead.

Here's the short version:

I disagree (naturally). Although it's all well and good to approach things with a completely laizzes faire, buyer beware attitude, in practice standards are not about SEO's.

They are about clients. And the public.

SEO's don't need protection from other SEO's. Neither do search engines. The public does.

Long Version

Ian

[thesitebox_guy]

Hi All

Well Jill I agree with you to part. Running the web business that I do, I have over the pass few years got into seo and try to make the keyword fit what the customer is looking for to reduce the bounce rate, I think that if a customer that lands on what they are looking for and if they don't buy there and then, if the site is good they will come back and we see this in our returning customers.

But! Where there should be some standards laid down is when you are paying people to do seo for you and I do this as well. Over the years I have tried the we will get you're top ten keywords one the front page G or give your money back brigade, try getting your money back!!! Forget it!!! These types of firms need policing and need standards that they have to work too.

I spend a lot of money each month with our web people seoing our site but I don’t know what they do on off site seo I just have to wait the 2, 4, 6, 8 weeks or more to see the results. If they were to do anything untoward I would not find out about it until it was to late. And here maybe standards or guidelines should be set down so the customer is not the one that suffers if you pick the wrong company.

[Randy]

I'm believe there are two different discussions going on here.

I get the sense that Jill is speaking more to whether there should be standards in how one does SEO, while the other question Ian and Sitebox Guy raise is whether there should be Professional Standards in how customers of SEO's are treated.

I think they're two different things. Sure they touch each other in a few places and one can sometimes affect the other, but they're still different. Examples abound in all sorts of fields where there are standards, but in every case I can think of it's much more of a Did you do right by the customer thing than it is a What things you do to accomplish your job thing.

[mcanerin]

That's why I think that talking about how standards would constrict SEO's is a red herring.

Do fire safety standards outline how firefighters point their hoses? Or does it address things related to public safety like how many exits there are required to be in buildings?

I really don't give a rat's ass about SEO's and their issues. If you can't take competition, go do something else. The same with search engines. Don't like it? Fix it, it's your search engine.

But leave innocent members of the public out of it. They need to know what they are paying for. They need to know what is generally considered to be a good method, and what is generally considered to be a bad one. It's up to them to decide if they agree. But they deserve to know. Only experts in the industry can give that information, therefore it's up to the experts to give it. It's called professional responsibility.

As an example, an SEO that defines "link building" differently than every other SEO is likely to make clients feel like they have been ripped off, and the entire industry placed in disrepute as a result. Unless that SEO clearly outlines their own definition, and how it's different from what clients think it is. In order to do that, you need to have a standard definition first that the clients can understand.

If you want to do something different/better/worse than generally accepted standards, fine. But a client should be aware that you are doing something different/better/worse. You want laws to address scammers? Those same laws require generally accepted standards in order to function. It all comes back to standards. The public needs them. We need them.

Ian

[Hyperformance]

In this Industry, I never did understand "Standards" as a necessary evil - nor do I think they could keep up with the changes of the engines or technologies (mobile, etc.)

It comes down to one question for me... "What has the lack of Standards done to hold back our Industry or progress?"

I believe we have not been held back at all due to any lack of standards.

- Scott

[mcanerin]

Of course, since we have no way of knowing where we would be if we had them, there is no way to know that, is there?

Perhaps the lack of standards put us ahead. Perhaps it had no effect. Perhaps it held us back. With no way to know, and with no ability to compare scenarios, we are working with a lack of information. You can't make a positive conclusion based on a lack of information.

What information we DO have is that almost every day someone is out there calling SEO's a bunch of scam artists.

Example:

Thousands of "Search Engine Optimization" consultants and companies have sprouted up in the past few years. I have never wondered at whether SEO is an effective thing to do — clearly, it is a waste of time. But furthermore, most of the practices in which SEOs engage are at best shady and at worse, downright unethical. One way or another, the practices of SEOs are likely not practices in which a legitimate business with a sound marketing model need to engage.

Source: http://www.thebluesm...om/seo.scam.php

You can find lots more (I just grabbed this one at random). Just do a few searches for "seo scam", "seo ripoff" and so forth in your favorite search engine.

At the very least, I'd call that a reputation issue stemming from a lack of understanding as to what SEO is all about. Reading this article is scary. He's not even sure what SEO's mean by "keyword". And this is apparently an experienced webmaster. Perhaps a standard definition of what a keyword is might help?

I think sometimes we get so used to knowing how things work that we forget that the general public has virtually no clue. One of the reasons I still contribute to forums and give (free) SEO seminars to local businesses is because it helps keep me grounded. I routinely have to explain concepts like anchor text to otherwise very knowedgable people.

Part of setting up standards is that they give a basis for uniform and consistent training and reference points. That's a good thing, IMO.

One last thing. Go actually ask a few members of the general public what they think of a profession that doesn't have standards for definitions, terms and processes. Then actually listen to them. Don't just assume you know. Repeat as necessary. I suspect you'll have a very different opinion about things when you are done, and whether we are doing ourselves any favors by not having standards.

Ian

[Hyperformance]

A thought -

So in this Industry, if there was some Standard to the actions (definitions are one thing, but not a standard to me, but a defining term accepted Industry wide), and if I did things differently, this would not add confusion to an already confused public? And let's say what I was doing worked, but did not 'conform' to the Standards set by some 3rd party group publishing of accepted 'standards'. In time, I feel these auto-repair.... kinda like Blu-ray or HD...no? Or the multiple CD ROM formats that once existed? Not to say there was not added confusion to the public for a period... but instead, did it work for the application intended?

Now, with Industry changes I have kept up with, and the Standards set fall short of, that would make me and my actions an Outlaw, or Rebel to the Standards that have not kept up... who did they help? And then a year later the Standards Commitee catches up - well, in that case, they only hurt my business. There really is no - "I told you so" to clients you never gained based on their beliefs in what that Commitee published and held as some Authority to the way it 'should' be done.

With an ever changing Industry I see Standards (not definitions) no different than "In the beginning" of personal computers... nobody knew what anything was back then. did it prevent computer sales? Did it force standards in hardware and software? Were they always right? Did every manufacturer follow them? Did that hurt or help them or the public? Did it slow the Industry? And, were you wrong if you thought outside those boxes? That (IMO) would have further stifled ingenuity and originality... in both products and services.

Much of what I read about SEO Scams etc., have little to do with our industry or lack of standards, but fall under ethics or doing good business which exists in every industry - would it have weeded them out? Would the public be more aware to avoid these scammers? No different, proper research, accepted paractices, knowledge, and references checked are more valuable (IMO).

Buyer beware - no matter what Industry - could prevent a lot of these scams - But could a set of standards that the best in the industry were ahead of and did not align themselves with help or hurt the Industry or the consumer? Not sure - all speculation - I do agree with you there Ian.

- Scott

[Jill]

At the very least, I'd call that a reputation issue stemming from a lack of understanding as to what SEO is all about.

I agree.

Which is why I've devoted much of my career to educating the public as well as other SEOs what professional SEO is all about. That's why we have this forum, the newsletter, my columns, and why I speak at conferences. Sure, it's all good marketing for High Rankings as well, I'm not gonna lie, but my main reason for most of the free stuff is to make it as easy as possible to find good, sensible info for those who care to seek it out.

If the dopes who buy crappy SEO rip off packages can't find this forum or my newsletter, how do you think they're going to find some "standards" definitions?

And which SEOs with their own agendas are going to create those standards as well as enforce them?

You guys might want to read the comments and threads over at Sphinn on this topic. There are a few good ones going on right now.

We DON'T Need SEO Standards (With comments regarding my original article)

We DO need SEO Standards (comments regarding a post from Lisa at Bruce Clay)

And Ian, as you attempt to put together your plan, don't forget about all the great info you've already written on this topic in our secret Standards area here on the forum from 2004!

[Alan Perkins]

All of the search engines publish guidelines (nowadays), but if we interpret "guidelines" more generally as "The published guidelines and/or the principles upon which they are based", I think there are three types of people:

1) Those who understand the guidelines and work within them
2) Those who don't understand the guidelines
3) Those who understand the guidelines and knowingly work outside them

In group 2, I think there are two subsets

2a) Those who don't understand the guidelines but think they do
2b) Those who know they don't understand the guidelines

OK, then we come to reputational issues and how they come about. The industry suffers if somebody in group 2 professes to be in group 1 or 3, or if somebody in group 3 professes to be in group 1. They are the two biggest issues that need sorting out. Who should sort them out? I couldn't say, but I for one really struggle when another SEO tries to tell me they will regulate me - especially when I know I'm in group 1 but I suspect they are in group 2 or 3!

It can also be argued that the industry suffers because groups 2 and 3 exist. Certainly a small number of vocal group 3ers can make the whole industry seem like a bunch of cowboys.

performing SEO in such a way that satisfies all stakeholders, i.e., the client, the search engines, and the internet as a whole

Well put!

[Jill]

Well put!

Thank you.

I for one really struggle when another SEO tries to tell me they will regulate me - especially when I know I'm in group 1 but I suspect they are in group 2 or 3!

Yeppers!

[Alan Perkins]

Thank you

You are welcome. It reminded me of my article on Ethical SEO.