Does SEO=SPAM? Options

The heat is on lately for anyone specializing in optimizing web sites and web pages for search portals. The idea behind SEO/SEM (search engine optimization/search engine marketing) began as a way to promote pages so that they could be found easily among the competition and rank well for their intended keywords. Some sites need help being indexed because of how they're constructed.

The profession has grown to include usability improvements for better quality pages, and content copywriting for accurate indexing.

To accomplish these, and other, goals, methods vary. Many of them are considered "unethical". It would appear as though more and more attention has been put on what some people consider "tricks", with a near complete disregard for any SEO that strives to help a search portal produce quality search results - something many SEO professionals are devoted to.

In light of the launch of Google's page about SEO, - http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html

the lawsuit by SearchKing against Google for possible PR penalization, and the suggestion by Google and other SEO professionals to report SEO "spam" to search portals, do you feel that all SEO is SPAM?

This forum is very interested in your thoughts, opinions and comments.

Kim

Does SEO = Spam? No, tinned spiced ham = spam.

Would the majority of SEO techniques be regarded by search engines as spam ... yes. The moment any technique, however 'ethical' or 'unethical', results in a poor quality resource coming up high in the SERPs.

Search engines make a business out of making referrals based on some very minimal criteria. A user enters a couple of words in a search box, and the search engine will be judged by the user on the quality of the results returned. Good results can gain customer loyalty, while poor results can cause a customer to never return.

A few simple SEO 'tricks' by an amatuer webmaster trying to make 10 bucks on an affiliate scheme can affect the fortunes of a multi-million dollar search engine. Naturally, this causes a certain amount of tension.

Very few SEOs are as commited to long-term sustainability as are the search engines that have invested millions of dollars into building their system and brand. As a result, I'd say that the majority of SEOs are happy to risk the long-term reputation of an SE for a few thousand fast bucks today.

I mention the above as an essential part of understanding how search engines view SEO, and why. Search engines would probably rather that even the most ethical of SEOs would vanish, because so long as anyone makes SEO work in any way, the fast-buck merchants will keep spamming and scamming.

All the talk about 'ethics' just confuses the issue. If a client comes to an SEO to gain top-ten ranking and the SEO accepts the contract, then it is unethical not to deliver. Sure, it is also unethical to use tactics that carry a risk to the client without that client being aware of the risks. It is 'unprofessional' rather than 'unethical' to use tactics that pollute the SE.

Is SEO spam? Yes - at least according to one definition of seo spam:- anything that done to a website or page, solely because search engines exist, is spam.

The question should be, "is search engine spam wrong or unethical?" The answer to that is a definite NO!!!

As long as search engines display their results 10 (or nn) at a time, and imply that the most relevant results are at or near the top, then people will rightly attempt to get their sites, and those of their clients, into those top positions. Whether they use real search engine optimization or more friendly techniques, such as seo copywriting, they will still try to maipulate the rankings to favour their sites - and so they should!

Webmasters didn't choose to display the serps 10 at a time - the engines did. The engines made it what it is, and they knew exactly what they were doing. Even in Brin and Page's original PageRank paper, before Google was introduced to the world, they talked about people trying to manipulate the results. So the fact that it happens didn't come as a surprise or shock to them. If they are still unable to prevent it - tough. It's their problem and not ours.

They may imagine that they place the most relevant sites, for a given search term, at the top, but they don't. Yes, they do place relevant results at the top, but they don't place all the relevant results at the top. The '10 at a time' system ensures that they can't do it.

Take the search term "search engine optimization" as an example. Google has 600,000 web pages that match (it's a rounded figure so we can be sure that there are more). It's a safe bet that you can go down the listing as far as Google allows (around 800) and most of the listings will be equally relevant to the ones listed in the top 10. That's the system that the engines created and, as long as it exists, people will always take steps to manipulate the rankings to favour their sites - and so they should.

The engines may call ranking manipulation spam and I don't mind it being called spam. What I do mind is the idea that search engine spam = wrong. That idea is a load of BS.

If anyone want to discuss specific seo techniques with regard to spam, let's hear some views. As far as I am concerned, search engine spam doesn't exist.

If anyone is interested, here are some short articles about some seo techniques and spam:- search engine optimization spam.

Phil.

Ethics.

PAH

Unfortunately, a little knowledge is the cause of most of the spam that search engines suffer.

Inspite of the fact that Google was still a pipedream when "keywords" ruled the roost, there are many web designers who claim to do SEO which will consist of "optimising your keywords" and "submitting your site to 100,000 search engines" and that is now.

I think the sad thing is that those that have taken the time to forge relationships with the search engines, spend their own money and valuable time attending events like Search Engine Strategies, and Pub Conference, and helped many small business owners, often unpaid, get tarnished with the same brush as those that take $99, do an Inktomi submission of a home page or creat a ghastly doorway page and get the whole thing wrong.

People that understand the issue/conflict of frames/flash/dynamic content and help the owners of those sites stand a chance of getting their share of traffic are classed as evil and cheats.

If the search engines put forward some form of accreditation, how many SEO people would there be then? But the thing is the search engines are in competition and have to make money.

I have a question.

If the search engines removed from their index all those sites/pages that were designed with improving rankings in mind, how many billion pages would Google have indexed? How about FAST? As much as they say they may hate these sites, they swell the numbers, which make things look great from an investors point of view.

Double standards will always apply and if SEO=SPAM then I am proud to be a spammer, and so are the many clients making a good living from the work we have done for them.

Jim Banks
http://www.webdiversity.co.uk
Don't let your web site kill your business

I've always wondered about the fundamental conflict of interest: why would a search engine tolerate a third party getting between the client and the paid listing placements? When you add to the fact that the seo value proposition is to er...herm..."influence" the relevancy as decided by their golden child (the algo)?

There are some advantages seo's provide search engines. Websites need to be in a format suitable for their crawler, which, let's face it, isn't very clever. It wants old school HTML, not Flash, or dynamic content, or any other innovative web design technique that emerges. So why not provide seo's with an acceptable practice list here?

Also, webmasters allow their sites to be cached, and their bandwidth used by the crawler, presumably in return for the traffic. To make that process opt-in would kill any search engine overnight. There's got to be a bit of give and take.

Is all seo spam? Depends what is meant by seo and what is meant by spam. The recent guidelines by Google talked a lot about the later, with only a brief mention of the former.

Why was that?

Personally speaking, it matters little to me either way. Corporate clients will pay-per-click if traditional seo is no longer an option. Just curious as to why the search engines have never come out with a definitive statement to legitimate seo.

I think it's only recently, that Google themselves have realized there are people out there simply helping sites be more search engine friendly through simple design changes that allow the spiders better access, using more appropriate language within the copy of the pages, turning graphical text into real text, and other things like that.

This is where SEO is heading, thankfully, and we really have Google to thank for it. They are the only engine who is truly committed to getting rid of the junk and the sites that try to trick them.

Just a year ago, I would have said that there were very, very few pages out there that were penalized or banned from any engine. You had to really go out of your way to p***o** the engine if you were going to get penalized. These days, however, you really can get a penalty. And you can get that penalty for attempting to reverse engineer their algo. If that's the kind of SEO you wanna practice, you will constantly be chasing your tail.

Me...I'd rather simply help sites to be the best they can be, let them naturally get their high rankings, and not have to worry about it again for years to come.

This is the real future of SEO, and Google or any other engine will NEVER have a problem with that.

Therefore, all SEO is not spam.

Jill

This is the real future of SEO, and Google or any other engine will NEVER have a problem with that

I think Google are the only people capable of making that statement.

Me...I'd rather simply help sites to be the best they can be, let them naturally get their high rankings, and not have to worry about it again for years to come. 

That simply isn't true. It might be true for areas with very low competition (who I would argue do not really need to employ an seo anyway, merely a competent designer) but it is not true for competitive market sectors.

This is no different to marketing in the offline world. Try and convince Coke to sit back, build a better bottle and don't worry about all this agressive marketing placement guff.

What's your definition of "competitive"?

Jill

Is all seo spam? Depends what is meant by seo and what is meant by spam. The recent guidelines by Google talked a lot about the later, with only a brief mention of the former. 

Why was that?

The fact that most SE's keep quiet on issues to do with SEO and SEOers speaks volumes to me.

I think it's only recently, that Google themselves have realized there are people out there simply helping sites be more search engine friendly through simple design changes that allow the spiders better access, using more appropriate language within the copy of the pages, turning graphical text into real text, and other things like that. 

This is where SEO is heading...

Absolutely wrong. For one thing, your description doesn't describe SEO at all. It describes making sites "search engine friendly", which is something that has always been done, and was never considered to be search engine optimization except, perhaps, by those people who do or did it.

In recent times, some people in the forums have tended towards search engine friendly techniques. They like to think of themselves as SEOs but they aren't. Those people are only a few of the tens of thousands of SEOs out there, so it is impossible to say that "This is the real future of SEO". It may be the real future of SEF (search engine friendlyizing) but it certainly isn't anything to do with SEO or its future.

As I said earlier, as long as search engines display the results 10 at a time, people will always attempt to manipulate the rankings to get their own sites to the top, and they will do it with SEO methods when SEF methods fail.

Me...I'd rather simply help sites to be the best they can be, let them naturally get their high rankings, and not have to worry about it again for years to come.

You just made my point for me. That isn't SEO.

Therefore, all SEO is not spam.

Turning to actual SEO.....there are 2 main definitions of it. One is that anything that done to a website or page, solely because search engines exist, is spam. The other is that whatever a search engine says is spam, is spam for that engine.

By the first definition, ALL SEO is spam and ALL SEOs and SEFs are spammers. By the second definition, not everything that an SEO does is spam and SEFs are probably not spammers.

Me...I'd rather simply help sites to be the best they can be, let them naturally get their high rankings, and not have to worry about it again for years to come.

That simply isn't true. It might be true for areas with very low competition (who I would argue do not really need to employ an seo anyway, merely a competent designer) but it is not true for competitive market sectors.

I completely agree.

Phil.

In light of the launch of Google's page about SEO, - http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html the lawsuit by SearchKing against Google for possible PR penalization, and the suggestion by Google and other SEO professionals to report SEO \"spam\" to search portals, do you feel that all SEO is SPAM?

This forum is very interested in your thoughts, opinions and comments.

Hi Kim & Fellow Forum-Mates,

Of course all SEO is not SPAM.

This is now very evident since Google has publicly stated that not all SEOs are unethical.

Therefore one can conclude that not all SEO is SPAM.

Here is what Google has to say on the matter ...

Search Engine Optimizers

SEO is an abbreviation for \"search engine optimizer.\" Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.

While Google does not have relationships with any SEOs and does not offer recommendations, we do have a few tips that may help you distinguish between an SEO that will improve your site and one that will only improve your chances of being dropped from search engine results altogether.

Google says ...

Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners.

From that statement, if the statistics were actually counted and reported, we would have to say that the following statement would be more accurate ...

Of all the individuals and/or companies that refer to themselves as Search Engine Optimizers, a few provide useful services for Website owners.

Google goes on to also say ...

However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.

Here again we would have to say that the aforementioned statement would be more accurate if they said ... However, there are many unethical SEOs ...

Also, while it is not wise in certain instances to READ INTO ...


---

Since Googles Says: Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners ...

Then Google Implies: Not all SEOs provide useful services for website owners ...

Then Google Implies: Not all SEOs Spam.

---

Since Googles Says: ... unethical SEOs ...

Then Google Implies: That there is such a person as an ethical SEO

---

Since Googles Says: ... through their overly aggressive marketing efforts ...

Then Google Implies: That means that non overly aggressive marketing efforts are OK (or ethical).

---

Since Googles Says: ... their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.

Then Google Implies: That attempts to fairly manipulate search engine results are OK (or ethical).

---

We are sure that Google went to great lengths to come up with those exact words and therefore they must have covered the possibilities of what we just posted in respect to what they have also implied.

We are simply adding our commentary and not adding words into their carefully chosen words that aren't already pretty obvious and implied.

If we are, then again, we stand corrected and we apologize.

So does anyone agree with our deductive reasoning? If you do (or even if you don't) we'd love to hear from you, thanks.

From what Phil says, this whole argument would not exist if either he or I (or our "camps") would give up calling ourselves SEOs.

I maintain that what I do is indeed SEO and the stuff that Phil may (or may not do, but that is possibly considered spamming the engines) is not SEO.

Think about what SEO stands for. Search Engine Optimization. Yes, it's a bit backwards in that we don't optimize search engines, as my pal Bob Massa sometimes says. However, we do optimize Websites for the search engines. That describes exactly what I do. Not what search engine spammers do. They don't optimize websites for the search engines. They create pages filled with stuff that will rank high in the engines, and then redirect the user to the web site (the one that was not optimized to rank high in the search engines).

So you start calling yourselves something other than SEOs. Not me. I do SEO.

Jill

From what Phil says, this whole argument would not exist if either he or I (or our \"camps\") would give up calling ourselves SEOs. 

I maintain that what I do is indeed SEO and the stuff that Phil may (or may not do, but that is possibly considered spamming the engines) is not SEO. 

Think about what SEO stands for. Search Engine Optimization. Yes, it's a bit backwards in that we don't optimize search engines, as my pal Bob Massa sometimes says. However, we do optimize Websites for the search engines. That describes exactly what I do. Not what search engine spammers do. They don't optimize websites for the search engines. They create pages filled with stuff that will rank high in the engines, and then redirect the user to the web site (the one that was not optimized to rank high in the search engines).

To be fair, you do describe your operations in a way that could possibly be described as "search engine optimization". But I have a couple of objections to the use of that phrase when describing what you do.

(1) Historical: Going back a number of years, the common understanding of search engine optimization was the act of optimizing individual web pages to rank highly for their targeted keywords/phrases. The word "optimizing" was used because individual pages really were optimized; i.e. keyword densities, etc. etc. etc. If done well, the pages were optimized to a point where the degree of optimization couldn't be improved upon. "Optimizing" really did mean optimizing back then. That's how the phrase "search engine optimization" came about.

<added>Optimizing also included oprimizing filenames and filepaths</added>

(2) Literal: From what I've seen you write, it seems that in those days a few people, including yourself, found that they were getting top rankings without such precise optimizing, and they decided not even to learn to optimize. Instead, they stuck with writing copy that was likely do well in the rankings. They were not optimizers in the way that was understoond by everyone but, because they were getting top rankings by placing some thought into the copywriting, they presumably decided to adopt the term that the optimizers were using, and call themselves search engine optimizers.

As much as you'd like to think otherwise, nothing has changed. Optimizers still optimize, and those who don't "optimize" are not optimizers - they merely adopted the phrase because they were in the same business as the optimizers - getting top rankings.

So you start calling yourselves something other than SEOs. Not me. I do SEO -- you don't.

Jill, I know what you do because you've written publically what you do. You only know a little of what I do because I don't write much of it in public. You do precisely what is known as making web pages "search engine friendly". What you do is not search engine optimization. People who make search engine friendly pages and sites are SEFs, not SEOs. They never were SEOs.

Phil.

Optimize: to make optimal.

Optimal:

"Refers to the extremal (maximum or minimum) of an effect in a desired direction. Something is optimal when it is the best there is and there is nothing better."
source: http://www.see.org/e-ct-glo.htm

"An algorithm which produces the best possible solution."
source: http://www.cs.usask.ca/resources/tutorials.../glossary.shtml

"Best, most favorable or desirable."
http://www.med.unc.edu/irb/Glossary.htm

Optimal in the case of SEs means bang-on the algo. Anything less than perfectly matched to the ranking criteria is less than optimal. On such grounds, Phil's statements are closer to true of optimization, Jill. Sorry

A page that "does okay" in searches is not optimized.

There's nothing 'wrong' with Jill's approach to SEO, and neither is there anything 'wrong' with the approaches Phil defends and that so many call 'unethical' either. If I were seeking to promote an online casino I very much doubt that I'd consider Jill's approach adequate to the task however.

I admire Jill's stance on SEO. I seriously do. However, there are still always going to be companies that want to buy a high ranking, including in highly competitive areas such as gambling, adult material, travel related and health related. Already you'll find it very hard to even dream of cracking a top ten position in any of those fields without pulling out all the stops and using all of the tricks that work.

Personally, I prefer the gentler side of SEO. I like to deal with SEO more as a marketer than as a super-geek with a slide-rule and complex software designed to produce huge shadow-domains full of cloaked doorways. The trouble is, so long as one of those super-geeks can get results, I *have* to be able to compete, or I have to stick to easier keywords.

If Search engines really want to stop spam then they have only one realistic option - they have to stop it from working.

That has to be one of the best posts I've seen on the subject, anywhere, Ammon.

Phil, your historical view of SEO is your view.

I've been doing SEO the way I do it now since I started doing it in 1995. I can't quite recall when it started being called search engine optimization, however, but the term is exactly what it is I do.

Again, we're not arguing about whether SEO is spam. We're simply arguing about the definition of SEO, and obviously we will never agree on it.

When you start calling the type of SEO you're talking about SES (search engine spamming) then I'll start calling mine SEF.

Deal? :?

Jill

There's a flaw in the very idea of a search engine like Google, or Altavista, or Fast, or even Aliweb. The flaw isn't in the engine itself or how it ranks pages. It has more to do with the underlying anarchy of the web itself.

In a small and controlled environment, you can get people to build pages which are "optimized" solely on the basis of their content. Metadata information would indicate how and where something should be indexed. Human review would verify that information about the contents of documents was correct. If it wasn't, corrections could be made, and the index would be valid. Libraries have systems like this.

On the web, you have a large number of authors of web pages, many of whom are unaware of the use of metadata, or of titles that reflect actual content, or the use of headings. There are so many pages that human review and indexing is almost impossible. There are noncommercial sharings of information based upon ideas maybe best described in writings about "gift economies." There are also people who are trying to engage in commercial activities on the web. The lack of structure and order and focus makes indexing a challenge.

Some regulation of the web is left to private commercial entities like Google, and other search engines. The internet is a nonspatial place, and it's difficult for government to say what practices are right and wrong, especially since those practices have little regard for national boundaries. It's not against the law to cloak, or create doorway pages, etc. It is against the law to commit fraud, and engage in some other practices. The government does provide some regulation. But, search engines try to shape behavior on the web by offering a benefit for acting in a certain manner.

On one hand, it's in the engines' best interests to have knowledgeable and capable people building pages that are search engine friendly. Because of them, there is some relevance to results of searches.

On the other hand, people who are knowledgeable and capable also have some insight on how to manipulate results so that one competitor's pages show up in results before anothers.

To a large degree, Google, and other search engines, are private companies, attempting to regulate the web. Or, at least, to regulate the activities of people who care about whether or not they show up in those engines' results.

It has to be a real struggle for them, because the more information they provide people about "best practices," the more they give people insights on how to manipulate their systems. Unlike a library or intranet, they have often have little control over the pages that appear in their indexes beyond the threat of doing such things as applying penalties or banning sites.

If you asked someone at most engines whether SEO = Spam, I think that they would say that SEO is good when it helps provide relevant results in their index, and SEO is bad when it makes their index look less relevant. They would also say that SEO is also bad when it chews up a great amount of the indexes' resources, such as using automated programs to check rankings. It's not a question of ethics or morals as much as it is keeping searchers' perceptions of the relevance of results pages.

Some people make claims that engines should be regulated as if they were a public resource. They say that should happen because so many people rely upon them. I'd say that those people are right, but for the wrong reason. The engines have taken it upon themselves to index the web. For a number of them, you don't sign a contract with them, nor do you have to submit a page. They will follow an indexed page to your site, and index the site. You don't opt-in to having their spiders visit, though you can opt-out with a robot exclusion file. There's no unwritten contract out there that says that these engines can make commercial use of your pages by including you in their index. By taking without asking, and by regulating in exchange for a listing in their index, they've made themselves a public resource.

What implications does that hold? Here's one: if a search engine is going to penalize a site, they should inform the site's owners why, and give them an opportunity to respond or to make changes. If they do end up penalizing the site, they should let the site's owners know that they have, and why.

Engaging in arm length conversations with other business owners and with the builders of nonprofit and noncommercial web sites is a great practice, and one which search engines should embrace. One which can benefit both sides. There's a great article in the December 3, 2002 edition of SearchDay which looks at AliWeb, and the personal index that they required people to build in order to have AliWeb index their site. People didn't build that index, and the engine suffered because of it.

Phil, your historical view of SEO is your view.

Are you suggesting that it was SEFs who first called themselves "search engine optimizers". If so, you are mistaken. The word "optimization" was used because that's what SEOs were doing - optimizing pages according to Ammon's definitions.

Again, we're not arguing about whether SEO is spam.  We're simply arguing about the definition of SEO, and obviously we will never agree on it.

This is true. We're a bit off-topic. I suppose I'm still under the influence of someone going way over the line by refering to people like me as a "scum bucket companies" and "scummy".

When you start calling the type of SEO you're talking about SES (search engine spamming) then I'll start calling mine SEF.  

Deal?   :?

Ok, it's a deal. I already said that everyone who takes steps to manipulate the rankings is a spammer. I take steps to manipulate the rankings, so what I do is SES (search engine spamming).

Will you now admit that what you do is SEF (search engine friendlyizing) and not SEO (search engine optimizing)?

Phil.

LOL

I'll admit that it's SEF, but not that it's not SEO. I don't imagine you'll admit that your SES is not SEO either, right?

Meanwhile, we still can't agree on a term for SEO!

Jill

Ah. You want it both ways.

You see, I "optimize" pages, whereas you don't. So I am correct in calling myself an optimizer, but people who don't actually optimize, are incorrect to call themselves optimizers. They would be correct in calling themselves "search engine promoters".

It's perfectly simple - people who don't actually "optimize" are not optimizers. I don't know how I can make it any easier to understand.

Phil.