128 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

My point was that deceiving a search engine is a form of false advertising. If false advertising leads to a sale, I consider that theft.... probably the theft of more than 5 cents.

[Jill]

IMO, Ethical SEO exists only for the person defining their own ethics, and Compliant SEO exists only for those who have no idea what the letters SEO mean.

I agree with that!

Jill

[compar]

In my mind, it is closer to submitting false/misleading information in a press release to print media.

If they run your information, it will make them look bad and it could upset their readers. They have an obligation to check the facts- that doesn't mean erroneous information won't slip through.

An ethical press agency wouldn't attempt to promote information that is false, while an unethical agency would if it is likely to get his/her client some ink.  After all, their primary concern is their client, right? The degree to which the information is misleading might make it illegal, but more likely not.

I continue to think that the concept of ethical and moral is too import to be used in this sense. Taking your press agent example for instance would you accept "responsible" or "accountable" in lieu of ethical?

[qwerty]

So you don't believe that a person's sense of ethics, or their "moral compass," should be part of every decision they make?

Don't we make decisions that are informed by our beliefs in what's right and wrong all the time? Speaking as someone who doesn't happen to agree with all ten of the ten commandments, I think moral decisions are made by everyone every day. It's not just about whether you're going to commit murder.

[Scottie]

Taking your press agent example for instance would you accept "responsible" or "accountable" in lieu of ethical?

Nope.

I would add those words, but the bottom line, in MY mind, is that knowingly misrepresenting something is unethical. My personal opinion, as always.

[Jill]

Actually, I think 'Responsible SEO' might be a good way to phrase it!

kinda like that one...

[Alan Perkins]

And don't forget "Professional SEO".

BTW, digging around that site I posted earlier, I came across this great (IMO) article in the "Business Ethics" section: How Trust is Abused in Free Markets: Enron's "Crooked 'E'"

Enron is a very good example of how ethics can apply even to little tiny issues like, say, how you conduct yourself as a professional.

Anyway, a paragraph in this article reads:

Fraud always involves the creation and abuse of trust. Fraudulent firms love it when legitimate firms adopt signaling devices that they can mimic. This creates greater trust and allows more lucrative fraud. Before casual clothing became the rage, bankers wore nice suits. Sophisticated con men wore nice suits. Sophisticated con women wear fabulous outfits or appear like dowdy grandmothers - whatever works best as camouflage. "Identity theft" exemplifies the process. The fraudster, like a hermit crab, appropriates all the characteristics that signal the victim's creditworthiness. This makes it easy to establish trust.

Bad SEOs call themselves "ethical", "compliant" and "professional", too ...

[compar]

So you don't believe that a person's sense of ethics, or their "moral compass," should be part of every decision they make?

Don't we make decisions that are informed by our beliefs in what's right and wrong all the time? Speaking as someone who doesn't happen to agree with all ten of the ten commandments, I think moral decisions are made by everyone every day. It's not just about whether you're going to commit murder.

I guess the bottom line is that I am not prepared to let Google's guidelines be used to definite or evaluate the moral-ness of my character or the ethical-ness of my behavior. I would like to be judged on the basis of my compassion and tolerance. The absence of bigotry and the attempt to treat everyone equally. I believe that these are ethical issues and how one behaves towards them defines one's moral character.

When you use ethical in regards to SEO practices you are simply adding invisible links and keyword spamming to the list of ethical concepts. I have trouble accepting that bigotry and keyword spamming are of equal importance in judging the value of a person.

Edited by compar, 19 September 2003 - 05:55 PM.

[qwerty]

Ah, but I never said they were equal.

If we're going to use the cliched "gun to your head" choice, and I had to pick between publishing a web page with hidden links or setting fire to a school house, I'll publish the invisible links. It's less wrong, it does less harm, and I won't feel as guilty about doing it. But I'll still feel that I've done something I consider to be wrong.

[Alan Perkins]

I guess the bottom line is that I am not prepared to let Google's guidelines be used to definite or evaluate the moral-ness of my character or the ethical-ness of my behavior.

Google's guidelines have nothing to do with it. You don't need to read them to behave ethically, in an SEO sense. That's the whole point.

When you use ethical in regards to SEO practices you are simply adding invisible links and keyword spamming to the list of ethical concepts.

I disagree. That's too literal, IMO. The concepts are already established - things like "deception", for example.

[Alan Perkins]

If we're going to use the cliched "gun to your head" choice, and I had to pick between publishing a web page with hidden links or setting fire to a school house, I'll publish the invisible links. It's less wrong, it does less harm, and I won't feel as guilty about doing it. But I'll still feel that I've done something I consider to be wrong.

But you would have made the correct ethical decision! The one that did the least harm.

[mcanerin]

I have trouble accepting that bigotry and keyword spamming are of equal importance in judging the value of a person.

They are not, but this is a reverse of the slippery slope arguement. It's kind of like saying that since I didn't just commit mass murder, my shoplifting is ok. The fact that one pales in comparison to the other does not change scenario - only the response. Instead of the death penalty, you'd get a fine, or people would avoid you, or whatever.

I do agree that no one on the internet is the final judge of things good and bad - for example, one persons bigotry is anothers belief of how things are. It's even worse when someone actually doesn't know that what they are doing or believing is wrong, because they have been brought up that way. Are they immoral? Evil? Unethical? They never had a chance to be anything else.

Does choice or knowledge even factor in here? If you are spamming but don't know it's considered spamming or wrong, are you unethical? Why not? How about moral? Compliant? If your answer is different for compliant than it was for ethical, why is that? It would mean they were 2 different things.

In law, you need 2 things to be found guilty of a crime - the actus reas, and the mens rea, or the guilty act and the guilty mind, respectively. If you wanted to do it but didn't, or if you did do it but were not aware you were doing it, it doesn't count.

That's in criminal law, in regulatory and tort law there is a different set of rules. I would say that compliance and ethics and so forth in the SEO field almost always fall under this catagory. Which is interesting, and I'll tell you why in a second here. In regulatory law, it's best if you can show mens rea and actus reas, but it's not necessary unless the possible punishiment is similar to that of a crime - if the maximum possible punishment is a fine or whatever then the actus reas is all that is necessary - it doesn't matter that you didn't know you were speeding - you were, and that's that.

The interesting thing is that criminal law is "moral" in nature, and regulatory law is typically considered "ethical" in nature. Interesting. I'll leave that one to you guys to figure out.

One final thought - has anyone considered that we may be using 2 totally different definitions of "ethical"? Would this make any sense at all in a different language? Is ethical in a "I obey the rules" sense the same as ethical in a "I'm a better person than you are" sense? Can you have Ethical (big E) and ethical (small e) mean 2 different things?

Never confuse logic and philosophy with semantics. Pull out a dictionary on me and you will lose the arguement in about 10 secs unless we have previously agreed that the dictionary is to be the final judge. I can show you all sorts of totally different definitions in different dictionaries. Let me translate "ethical" into a few other languages and I'll have dozens of different definitions for you. Heck, there is a famous version of the King James Bible that very clearly states that "Thou Shalt Commit Adu1try". I'm sure that one is popular....

I think you can do a great job as an SEO and be a lousy person, and no doubt there are many very nice people out there who couldn't optimise their sites out of a wet paper bag.

Frankly, we should probably stick to defining "ethical" and compliant insofar as our own work is concerned - the fact that lawyers and doctors are required to take ethics as a course before practicing would tend to indicate that if professions that are thousands of years old still can't rely on people "just knowing what they should do", our little 8 year old profession probably has enough on it's plate without dealing with the problems of the whole world, as well.

My opinion, as usual,

Ian

[compar]

If we're going to use the cliched "gun to your head" choice, and I had to pick between publishing a web page with hidden links or setting fire to a school house, I'll publish the invisible links. It's less wrong, it does less harm, and I won't feel as guilty about doing it. But I'll still feel that I've done something I consider to be wrong.

So now we are getting down to it. It is "wrong" when judged against the guidelines. Although even "wrong" is a little strong. So I originally suggested that it was non compliant and if you want to feel a little sense of guilt about it, I think that's fine.

Now Jill seems to have taken a shine to "responsible" so maybe we should agree that your action is irresponsible. I could live with that -- I know that you have been worried about that

The other suggestion is Professional and I know a lot of people use that in the sense of doing it responsibly. But Professional also has a very strong sense of "do for pay" and doesn't always convey exemplary behavior.

Now I had suggested compliant on another thread and a number of people had agreed that that was a good term. But earlier in this thread when I dared to suggest that compliant was the word of choice on this forum Jill put me very firmly in my place.

So Jill now that you appear to have blessed "Responsible" can I suggest its use in future threads of this type without incurring your public sanction?

[mcanerin]

Hmmm - seem to be getting somewhere now

Though of course the next argument will no doubt be "responsible to whom?" who? I can never figure out the correct usage of that.

Ian

[Jill]

Bob, I did take a shine for "responsible SEO" and I may even start using it as a way to describe the type of SEO that I teach. It would be fine to use it on the forum in thread, but I don't think we're quite to the point where it's the "official" forum way to describe our type of SEO.

I imagine Ian's or Alan's next argument could sway me to a different word too!

Professional SEO has been a good one, but yes, professional can simply mean doing it for pay.

And as someone said earlier, no matter what terms we use, those who don't actually practice what we might consider responsible SEO, will use the moniker anyway.

We'll just have to keep changing it every three months or so!

Jill