101 replies to this topic

[projectphp]

"Ethical" Search Engine Optimization Exposed! (www.webworkshop.net/ethical_search_engine_optimization.html) - an article supposedly explaining why "Ethicl SEO" is doomed to fail.

I have two questions really:
1. Are this articles points valid? To some degree they are, but then the other side of the debate is not addresses, and the Author offers absolutely NO evidence whatsoever!!
2. Is this article a thinly vailed comment about Jill?? Seems that way to me, and a bit nasty and all!!!

Personally, the complete and utter lack of proof WHATSOEVER strikes me as pretty hypocritcal. Point to specifics, and give real examples. This "I know a guy, lets call him Mr Snrub.." kinda cloak and dagger reporting is a little poor IMHO.

Apart from that, I kinda like the Forum wrap up at the bottom, though. Irrespective of what you think of his ideas, knowing where he comes from allows one to judge his opinions acordingly.

What are other people's thoughts?

Edited by Jill, 24 August 2003 - 11:43 PM.

[Haystack]

Interesting article. He certainly has issues with the use of the word 'ethical' to describe optimizing a web site within the guidelines provided by the major search engines. Maybe Search Engine Compliant SEO would be a better term?

He seems to use a bandwagon (everybody's doing it) approach to justifying his use of optimization techniques. A similar argument could be used to justify speeding in your car, but occasionally you'll feel some pain in the form of a ticket if you get caught. In the case of optimizing web sites, the pain that a search engine can deliver for bending their rules could have a much larger impact on your wallet due to the drop in SE traffic.

Good point about lack of proof backing up his statement. I've never seen a set of results dominated by non-ethical/non-compliant techniques.

On top of that, one of the techniques my company uses to achieve high rankings for our clients sites is to report site's out of compliance with Google's published spam guidelines. There's more than one way to get a site to the top of the search results and one of those is shoving non-compliant sites out of the way.

[Think Web]

[quote]"The point is that so-called "ethical" search engine optimization can't compete. It only works when there is little or no competition."[/quote]
Unethical SEO
plus an SE algorithm tweak
----------------------------
= You lose!

It will catch up to you...eventually.

[quoted text looked like it referenced Haystack but it's actually a reference to the article being discussed.]

Edited by Haystack, 24 August 2003 - 11:22 PM.

[Mel]

Well I happen to know the author and don't think his practice of SEO is any worse than the average, but he seems to take exception with the use of the word "ethical", and since there are no accepted rules governing what is ethical and what is not, that may be his gripe. Or it might just be a marketing ploy attract attention or sour grapes. I know that I stopped frequenting hearing every thread being dominated by the Spam concept.

I do think the cheap shot at Jill was a bit too thinly disguised, but the proof is in the pudding and so long as Jills customers are happy with her methods of practice I think that speaks for itself.

[market seeker]

Well I happen to know the author and don't think his practice of SEO is any worse than the average, but he seems to take exception with the use of the word "ethical", and since there are no accepted rules governing what is ethical and what is not, that may be his gripe. Or it might just be a marketing ploy attract attention or sour grapes. I know that I stopped frequenting hearing every thread being dominated by the Spam concept.

I do think the cheap shot at Jill was a bit too thinly disguised, but the proof is in the pudding and so long as Jills customers are happy with her methods of practice I think that speaks for itself.

some things the guy says are just plain dumb. I think it's a marketing ploy. I went through all the links and didn't find anything unique. I will agree though about one of the forums in that I had an experience just playing devils advocate and didnt really get the debate I was after.

It's fairly easy for me anyway to see the line between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing. If you stay within the perimiters of what the search engines want you are doing the right thing outside of that is doing the wrong thing.

I did the wrong thing for a while and paid the price. Now I do the right thing and get paid the price.

I'm sure jill will tell us if that story was about her and whether she asked this guy for help or not. I find it hard to believe that she would do something like that.

[Jill]

I have not read the article, as I assume by the URL that it's by Phil_C, whom I have argued with over and over at Cre8asiteforums. I have no interest in getting into anything with him again, so I won't be reading it.

I also removed the clickable link, because I also have no interest in linking to spammers.

Regarding the phrase "ethical SEO" I actually don't like that phrase either and it's not one that you will generally ever see me use. Everybody has different ethics, and it really has nothing to do with SEO.

Jill

[idrive]

I also removed the clickable link, because I also have no interest in linking to spammers.

Ouch Jill :-) I read the article and it just didn't convince me.... but I do believe in Freedom of Speech...

In terms of linking to spammers, if it is from a SE point of view, I'm not particulary convinced that a link from this discussion board would affect your website - was that your thought?

I really do enjoy the discussions here...I have stopped frequenting my other forums! Eek!

[deborah2002]

I am also familiar with this guys stuff on other forums.....angry little man, isn't he?

It sounds to me like he is spending waaay to much time justifying what he KNOWS is wrong. If you have to write an entire article degrading "ethical" SEO and trying to convince others that anything is fine as long as you get the results you are after, then what other conclusion can be brought from this?

Sad part is, some newbie is gonna read that and think he's right--I'm not gonna split hairs over the terms "ethical" and "unethical", but there is a "right" and "wrong" way to do something. Take a flyin' guess as to which one this falls under.

The thing about Jill (yeah, cheap shot) was nothing more than an excuse to act out some type of personal vendetta. There wasn't any real information there that could be used from an educational standpoint, just some guy bitchin' about someone he obviously didn't like. Again, just a cheap shot.

Just my 2 cents for the mornin'.

deb

[Jill]

In terms of linking to spammers, if it is from a SE point of view, I'm not particulary convinced that a link from this discussion board would affect your website - was that your thought?

I simply practice what I preach. I believe in only linking to stuff that provides a value to my visitors, and not to things that don't.

Knowing the previous writings of Phil, I'm quite sure that it doesn't provide a value to our visitors here, although it may be good for a laugh or two. I didn't remove the reference altogether, as I'm sure people may still be interested in reading it. Doesn't mean we need to have a link to it.

Jill

[Peter]

There are 2 ways to get your self noticed in a crowd:

1) Build yourself a strong base that you can stand on so everybody can see you.
2) Push everybody around you down so you are the only one visible.

Both are practiced online and off line.

The first takes a bit more efforts than the second.
The first takes longer than the second
The first is more satisfying

The second is easy, but works for just a moment, (maybe 2)
The second works faster, but works only with new people that have no idea what you are talking about.
The second goes together with a lot of bad feelings.

Some people have no other choice than to go with the second one and is generally used to compensate for a lack of competence.

Regards,

Peter

[braindead]

Peter,
Phil's purpose is not to get noticed. You might want to look at the actual issues raised by the article.

[market seeker]

Peter,
Phil's purpose is not to get noticed. You might want to look at the actual issues raised by the article.

Why don't you get it started.
What issues do YOU think he was trying to raise?

I see him pointing out the basics of SEO and saying that those can be learned in 30 minutes. But I don't see him offering anything other than that. I mean he wrote a good article but really didn't say too much.

A person can read and learn in 30 minutes to stitch up a gash in their arm too, but that doesn't mean it won't get infected and have a big scar.

[projectphp]

A person can read and learn in 30 minutes to stitch up a gash in their arm too, but that doesn't mean it won't get infected and have a big scar.

OUCH!! That is one weird (and painful) analogy!!!

I think he raises lots of issues, but none are particularly interesting, and none of it is really backed up by much. In particular, just because one instance of a situation occurs, doesn't mean that proves a whole case. If "ethical" seo doesn't work on one occasion, so what? Spamming / unethical SEO may, and I do mean may, not will, work in others.

IMHO rankings come and rankings go, but a ban is forever. Depending on the stakes you like to play for, that may or may not be your largest concern, and may or may not be a risk worth taking. If it is worth the risk, you are destined to live a life that is long, hard and difficult, and probably need some alternative source of income, for when that inevitable ban or spam filter comes around and messes havoc with your income stream.

[DanThies]

The main complaint I have about the article, and the content he links to, is that he seems to ignore whatever doesn't fit his argument. As we all do from time to time, I'm sure.

He hasn't really demonstrated that doing things within SE guidelines doesn't work. He claims that someone who wasn't able to get their client top 10 rankings for a highly competitive phrase asked for his help, but doesn't back it up.

He seems to like the notion that people will think it's Jill who asked for his help. Whatever. Everyone has an agenda.

[market seeker]

He's trying to justify spamming. He make the agument that it's ok to use hidden text because it doesnt' hurt anyone, the surfer or the engine. He's wrong though, it does hust the engine in that the surfer will go somewhere else to search. It hurts the surfer by wasting their time looking at useless information.

Like a speeder trying to justify speeding
or a theif trying to justify stealing