You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Birth of the SEO Self Regulation Community”.
Full SEO Services & Social Media Strategy
Check out the SEO Services Marketplace
Full SEO Services & Social Media Strategy
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Birth of the SEO Self Regulation Community”.
Check out the SEO Services Marketplace
Search Engine Journal
SOSG
That's a really unfair comment about 'High Profile SEOs'. Most share their tactics openly, which is why they are high profile, and usually the message is that there are no magic tricks — just hard work and patience. Most don't recommond, or practice, any tactics that may be considered black hat because they know that the SEs will soon catch up to it.
Or am I just being naive?
They most certainly don't recommend Black Hat–and I never said they did. I didn't even accuse them of practicing Black Hat. But you know what? If I earned $30,000 a week, or whatever the heck it is that Rand currently commands, I wouldn't want to be regulated either. But when you're at the other end of the scale and Matt Cutt's remarks are scaring clients away, then self regulation might be an answer don't ya think?
Hah, my grandfather was from County Cork.
Nice to meet you Ann.
Good stuff! Count me in.
Matt can say what he wants. The fact is that he rep[resents the company who employs him. SEO is not a goody-two shoes field. After all, our goal is to manipulate another company's website. That being said, that company (Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.) makes itself publicly manipulable and gives a big payoff for those who are successful at doing so; that is their business model. So there really are no white hats. But there still can be ethics and there is nothing wrong with putting in places codes of conduct that don't delve into minute strategies and tactics of any individual SEO consultant or firm.
Hi Patricia,
I have to take extreme issue with your deduction as to why high profile SEOs aren't interested in having any sort of SEO standards organization. To make the leap and infer that they are doing it for their own self interests so they can make more money and do bad SEO is not only insulting, but simply incorrect.
Rather than rewrite my feelings on this subject, please read my article at Search Engine Land, We Don’t Need SEO Standards! http://cli.gs/ena52a
And for the record, I might be what some consider a high profile SEO, but I don't even make close to $30k per week. I wish I did.
First Jill, don't take it personally because I really didn't have you in mind when I was talking about high profile SEOs. Funny but the people I did have in mind haven't take issue with what i said. I wasn't being insulting at all.
Are you saying that all top SEOs reveal all their strategies for everyone to copy? They don't for sure and I'm positive that they don't want to be subject to regulations so that they never have to reveal exactly what it is that they do. We all feel like that to a certain extent I suppose. But I was not accusing them of wrongdoing. They wouldn't be where they are if they habitually took risks with their clients.
All you keep saying is that rules won't work. All I'm saying is that we don't necessarily need a list of what we must do, but rather a list of what we should never do for client protection. That's all. It's no problem to our community (which is growing steadily), if most of you don't want to join. We're happy to be the heretics for now.
Nice use of Regulations logo there – http://www.myspace.com/regulationshc
Hiya Patricia, I plan on joining up (over at Ning) as it's always an interesting exercise and I am passionate about SEO. That being said, standards/regulations whateva' is one of the oldest horses that have been beaten sensless in the community over the years. There are more than a few great minds that have struggled with this in the past.
For starters, the search engines don't give out handbooks, which means the goal posts are always moving.That alone starts to make things touch unless one goes by the TOS/Guides published by SEs, which isn't really all of what we do. As stated above, most every SEO does break the 'rules' (established by search engines) at one point or another…
Second… getting the community (or a substantial portion of it) to agree on such types of framework is exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Once more, we're outside the bounds of TOS, whom decides what's so-called 'white' and what's 'black' – there's far more grey. To me this also tends to torpedo such efforts as yours.
Either way, I'm always keen to look at ideas that can bring greater sense of professionalism to SEO… just not hopefull..
ciao… nice to see the passion!!
Hi Patricia,
I've been on both sides of the fence on this issue for several years in my career. At this point, I fall close to Jill's position for a number of reasons, only one of which involves self-interest and none of which involve financial gain.
The biggest problem I see with self-regulation is the formation of “THE SEO COPS”. Who is going to play the role of regulator?
The next problem is that of technique. There are a number of high level techniques that are barely understood by the majority of the community. The IP-delivery vs. cloaking debate comes to mind. Could a misunderstanding of someone's technique put their good name in jeopardy? I've seen it happen on forums too many times.
A third problem is the expense of setting up a standards organization, and the fact that several have already tried. SEO is too dynamic to regulate easily.
I understand where you're coming from in your wish to see rules and regulations imposed on SEO spammers and scammers. The problem is how. I strongly suggest the debate is worthwhile but not sure myself what the answers are.
Thanks Dave. Yeah, I agree that the search engines won't make it easy.. But there are things that some so-called SEOs have been doing that get us all a bad name. I am not talking about professionals or the big names, but a green website owner who doesn't know the difference can't be expected to know if he's dealing with a fly-by-night or one of us, and that's what I aim to change.
Welcome by the way.
Hi Jim, there's only one thing for it: I have to make a blog post about exactly what my vision is.. I'm not really suggesting that we police each other: the idea behind self regulation is that by joining a member of the SEO Self Regulation Community will agree to avoid bad practices and to embrace the best practices commonly accepted in SEO. More later.
I am not an SEO Consultant
There are 2 types of standards I would look on as worth thinking about
1. Honest trade – don't rip people off, no false claims etc. Don't various trading standards laws cover this though?
2. About the only thing SEOs agree on in public is that title tags are important – I do however think it is vital for a SEO blogger to be consistant, thus if for instance his views on something have changed over time, they should take the trouble of going back through old content and in some way refer to the change.
There are some really high profile examples of this
Possibly a 3rd
3. An agreement not to invite people who will attack SEO or say it is useless to be keynote speakers at SEO conferences.
Patricia,
First, I admire you, as always, as a professional willing to do what you feel is best for yourself and for your industry.
But as I have in the past so many times, I am going to have to side with Jill Whalen. For though I admire your desire in cleaning out the gunk within our field of choice (operative word here), I think paying to belong to a bunch of folks who say “Yeah, you'll do–but let's go collectively attack that guy” is not a community I want to be a part of, because they can just as easily say “You suck” and I am suddenly at risk.
SEO is, and has been a shifting sand on which we perch…not some edict from above. “They” set the rules by how “their” machines work, we SEOs simply try to make the most of opportunities as they become evident through dedication, study, and hard work to reach and connect with more web users. Anyone not actually connecting with users (e.g., those using shifty tactics) can certainly enjoy success, but it is typically short-lived, and will soon be bested by better efforts, so is really not worth your attention.
To me, with this idea you sound a lot like Rand has come across in the past, and I feel he also should not be allowed to tell people what is right or wrong within this sphere of work…it seems pretty clear to me, you want to “out” people based on criteria and efforts your group decides upon, and IMHO, it is a recipe for disaster. You are barking up the wrong tree in this industry to target tangential (dare I say progressive?) thinkers.
If Google releases the specifics of their algo allowing one site to rank over another, I am all about joining up with others like me to never do evil, because there will be black-and-white rules to follow. These rules would allow good behavior to blossom, and punish bad behavior – but this is not on the table here. When Google or any other search engine is allowed to define the rules for success and then keep these definitions hidden, well then I guess we all must define our own version of “doing evil.”
I personally, have never done something I thought could in any way compromise my clients' efforts – but I don't need anyone's seal of approval to do so – I just do this as my own business model. But to think it is all about hat color is simply naive. I know lots of very pure blackhats who won't follow “THE” rules, but that is their own decision to make. Would I do what they do, even after seeing it work for them? Most often, no, because risk is not often part of my game plan…most of my clients are small businesses who can't afford it. So I do what I do for them, and simply let sloppy, crappy stuff do what it does. If it beats me down, that is my own fault for not being better than they are at something no one can accurately describe.
Plain and simple – it is about money. SEO is a business model, and should not be confused with a diary, a journal, or anything else. Search Engine Optimization says it all – you are not calling your trade “Better User Materials Doing Really Outstanding Performance Synergies” or “Holistic Operations Resulting in Search Engines Solidly Having It Together.” It is what it is, and you, like me, chose this field over other options.
So really, you are simply suggesting here that your group become the decision makers for an otherwise “maverick” industry, which would in effect limit the potential income of people who work just as hard as you do every day. But simply because your group says something is “so” will NEVER make it right – and when it does, I am ready to look into another profession.
Self-regulation in a group setting typically means, we are the ones doing the right thing, everyone else is wrong. While I disagree with this stance in most aspects of life, I am vehemently opposed to it in SEO – not because I am protecting any personal blackhat efforts or $30k-a-day income streams, but because I believe everyone has the right to decide the risks they are willing to assume in their efforts to achieve their own goals. You can't force everything into one mold…it doesn't work that way in almost any aspect of life, but especially not in search. Which is why I am here, doing what I do every day for the last 6 years – there is ALWAYS untapped opportunity, and some of it may be worth my efforts (though admittedly most are not).
I honestly believe, if you, personally, employ self-regulation on a day-to-day basis, you are not affected by Matt's OCCASIONAL slurs on SEO folks, or Rand's outings, or anything else really – clients that are worth finding will still find you or you'll seek and be able to find them. Because your work is the connection…do correct me if I am wrong. I don't care what kind of misconception abounds out there about what SEO means – it is about doing what is right with your own conscience, and finding those who agree, and will pay for your skills to help their business grow. SEO is about using special techniques and knowledge and experience to make more connections to web users.
It is simply not up to any group, or a vote, to decide the baseline measure of ethical behavior in the field at large. That is bad thinking, leading to even worse SERPs.
Though I admire your passion and echo many of your sentiments, I think your proposal is not the answer needed here – I think the huge search engines might offer some semblance of ethics and unilateral treatment long before the few who try to figure it all out in perhaps a different way get penalized by a self-appointed group of SEO cops…which is where this seems to inevitably lead. The Gestapo was never attractive – it is only less so when applied to SEO.
So mark me down as a “no thank you.”
Ooh I'm not talking about 'outing' anyone. I have far better things to do with my time.
I am not an SEO Consultant
There are 2 types of standards I would look on as worth thinking about
1. Honest trade – don't rip people off, no false claims etc. Don't various trading standards laws cover this though?
2. About the only thing SEOs agree on in public is that title tags are important – I do however think it is vital for a SEO blogger to be consistant, thus if for instance his views on something have changed over time, they should take the trouble of going back through old content and in some way refer to the change.
There are some really high profile examples of this
Possibly a 3rd
3. An agreement not to invite people who will attack SEO or say it is useless to be keynote speakers at SEO conferences.
Patricia,
First, I admire you, as always, as a professional willing to do what you feel is best for yourself and for your industry.
But as I have in the past so many times, I am going to have to side with Jill Whalen. For though I admire your desire in cleaning out the gunk within our field of choice (operative word here), I think paying to belong to a bunch of folks who say “Yeah, you'll do–but let's go collectively attack that guy” is not a community I want to be a part of, because they can just as easily say “You suck” and I am suddenly at risk.
SEO is, and has been a shifting sand on which we perch…not some edict from above. “They” set the rules by how “their” machines work, we SEOs simply try to make the most of opportunities as they become evident through dedication, study, and hard work to reach and connect with more web users. Anyone not actually connecting with users (e.g., those using shifty tactics) can certainly enjoy success, but it is typically short-lived, and will soon be bested by better efforts, so is really not worth your attention.
To me, with this idea you sound a lot like Rand has come across in the past, and I feel he also should not be allowed to tell people what is right or wrong within this sphere of work…it seems pretty clear to me, you want to “out” people based on criteria and efforts your group decides upon, and IMHO, it is a recipe for disaster. You are barking up the wrong tree in this industry to target tangential (dare I say progressive?) thinkers.
If Google releases the specifics of their algo allowing one site to rank over another, I am all about joining up with others like me to never do evil, because there will be black-and-white rules to follow. These rules would allow good behavior to blossom, and punish bad behavior – but this is not on the table here. When Google or any other search engine is allowed to define the rules for success and then keep these definitions hidden, well then I guess we all must define our own version of “doing evil.”
I personally, have never done something I thought could in any way compromise my clients' efforts – but I don't need anyone's seal of approval to do so – I just do this as my own business model. But to think it is all about hat color is simply naive. I know lots of very pure blackhats who won't follow “THE” rules, but that is their own decision to make. Would I do what they do, even after seeing it work for them? Most often, no, because risk is not often part of my game plan…most of my clients are small businesses who can't afford it. So I do what I do for them, and simply let sloppy, crappy stuff do what it does. If it beats me down, that is my own fault for not being better than they are at something no one can accurately describe.
Plain and simple – it is about money. SEO is a business model, and should not be confused with a diary, a journal, or anything else. Search Engine Optimization says it all – you are not calling your trade “Better User Materials Doing Really Outstanding Performance Synergies” or “Holistic Operations Resulting in Search Engines Solidly Having It Together.” It is what it is, and you, like me, chose this field over other options.
So really, you are simply suggesting here that your group become the decision makers for an otherwise “maverick” industry, which would in effect limit the potential income of people who work just as hard as you do every day. But simply because your group says something is “so” will NEVER make it right – and when it does, I am ready to look into another profession.
Self-regulation in a group setting typically means, we are the ones doing the right thing, everyone else is wrong. While I disagree with this stance in most aspects of life, I am vehemently opposed to it in SEO – not because I am protecting any personal blackhat efforts or $30k-a-day income streams, but because I believe everyone has the right to decide the risks they are willing to assume in their efforts to achieve their own goals. You can't force everything into one mold…it doesn't work that way in almost any aspect of life, but especially not in search. Which is why I am here, doing what I do every day for the last 6 years – there is ALWAYS untapped opportunity, and some of it may be worth my efforts (though admittedly most are not).
I honestly believe, if you, personally, employ self-regulation on a day-to-day basis, you are not affected by Matt's OCCASIONAL slurs on SEO folks, or Rand's outings, or anything else really – clients that are worth finding will still find you or you'll seek and be able to find them. Because your work is the connection…do correct me if I am wrong. I don't care what kind of misconception abounds out there about what SEO means – it is about doing what is right with your own conscience, and finding those who agree, and will pay for your skills to help their business grow. SEO is about using special techniques and knowledge and experience to make more connections to web users.
It is simply not up to any group, or a vote, to decide the baseline measure of ethical behavior in the field at large. That is bad thinking, leading to even worse SERPs.
Though I admire your passion and echo many of your sentiments, I think your proposal is not the answer needed here – I think the huge search engines might offer some semblance of ethics and unilateral treatment long before the few who try to figure it all out in perhaps a different way get penalized by a self-appointed group of SEO cops…which is where this seems to inevitably lead. The Gestapo was never attractive – it is only less so when applied to SEO.
So mark me down as a “no thank you.”
Ooh I'm not talking about 'outing' anyone. I have far better things to do with my time.
Also, I'm not suggesting my 'group' become decision makers for anyone but themselves. Why would anyone want to do that? Rather, I think we will actually be more effective because we are volunteering to self-regulate. We will be quite independent from other SEOs so if you disagree that we're doing the right thing I can't see what's to get upset about. Frankly.
That's a really good idea.. am gonna join right away!
well friend trying to get things going on the self regulation front for several years now. After approaching a number of big-name …!