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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.