Does SEO=SPAM? Options

FYI - Wired article topic moved here:

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/inde...p?showtopic=580

There we have the crux of the problem SEs will always have with SEO. SEO is the art of gaining a position in the rankings that was otherwise unmerited.

Although the article doesn't suggest that Brin said that, it is undoubtedly the reason that he sees SEO as being against search engines rather than on the same side. But he absolutely wrong - except in just one meaning of the word "unmerited"; i.e. unmerited according to the engine's algorithms, but not according to the site's or page's content.

Google usually place relevant results at the top, but not always. A current search on "uk holiday accommodation" shows 5 of the top 10 that are not uk-wide holiday accommodation; one is even France only and another is worldwide. Below the top 10 are sites that do merit being above those 5 - according to the merit of content, but not according to algos. Even if all of the top 10 are relevant and do merit being there, there are still many more sites that are just as relevant and merit being in the top 10.

SEOs take steps to place relevant sites at the top and in no way spoil the relevancy of the serps. On the contrary - they improve them. Search engines are afraid of the bad guys - those who get genuinely unmerited sites and pages to the top, but most SEOs don't do that. Most SEOs work only with relevant sites/search terms, and are on the same side as the engines. The only difference between the engines and SEOs is that an SEO want his/her site to be at or near the top whereas the engines don't care about individual sites as long as the top ones are relevant. If that's spam, so be it.

The methods used by SEOs to get relevant sites to the top are unimportant. SEOs don't choose them - the engines do. If I have a very relevant site for a particular search term but it's buried in the serps, and the site doesn't have any pages that suit an engine's criteria for what is relevant, I'll make a page that does suit them - a doorway page. In fact I'll page a number of pages - one for each relevant search term. I'd rather the engines automatically recognised the relevancy of my site but since they are incapable of doing that with some sites, doorway pages are a must. Whether I choose to turn an existing page into such a doorway page, or whether I create a new page for the purpose, is irrelevant. They are effectively the same thing. The engine made it necessary to do it, not me.

The engines decided that links matter, so I'll arrange links; they decided that link text matters, so I'll arrange the right link text; they decided that <h1> tags matter, so I'll use <H1> tags, and if they don't look good I'll use css to make them look good, etc. etc. The engines decide what they like to see - all we do do is provide it. They are the ones who decide what methods we use. If they don't like the methods, they can review sites by hand. If it's spam, it's spam. What it definitely isn't, is wrong. What is wrong is engines thinking that we are wrong in attempting to gain higher rankings for relevant websites when the engines criteria managed to bury them in the serps. The criteria are wrong, not the attempts at correcting the serps.

So is SEO spam? If you're a search engine, then yes it is spam. If you're a search engine brown-noser, then yes it is spam. If you're a sensible, realistic person who is capable of thinking things through, then no it definitely isn't spam - not in the "wrong" sense of the word.

Phil.

Agreed Phil.

The only way for the engines to prevent seo/spam/whatever is to stop it from working.

Deception (search for one thing, get something unrealted) should always be prevented if an index is to retain integrity, however on topic seo can and does provide mutual benefit, even if it sometmes appears that the engines don't place much value on it.

In the spirit of a binary world view, let's hear the search engines come right and say it - seo is (mostly) good

What a great thread!

The question of whether SEO = SPAM is one that can never be settled (IMO) since there is not a definition of either term that we (or the search engines) can agree on.

While I respect all the learned and detailed opinions of my peers here, IMO there is a more practical side to the matter:

SEO is about rankings, and rankings are about money.
Search engines are about relevancy (and more and more about money)

So long as the rankings the SEO achieves are for relevant terms he has done nothing to harm the search engine, but has helped his customer, the search engines and that oft negelected group, the surfers.

Thus ethical SEO helps the search engine and should not be considered spam (whatever that is, but I suppose we can all agree that its something bad?)

The concept that one relevant page merits a higher ranking than another relevant page is a bit far fetched since the true test of relevancy (IMO) is usefulness to the searcher, and each searcher using a particular search phrase is likely to have different requirements than others.

So instead of arguing the SEO equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, why not just concentrate on getting good rankings for relevant terms?

So long as the rankings the SEO achieves are for relevant terms he has done nothing to harm the search engine, but has helped his customer, the search engines and that oft negelected group, the surfers.

Great post Mel and some very reasoned arguments. Makes sense to me.

OH! It's angels....I was trying to figure out how angles can dance on the head of a pin, Mel. Well edited

Phil.

When I pay a search engine and manipulate the code (to their satisfaction) - it (apparently) is not spam! When I don't pay them, then it (often) is (by their definition).

As far as I personally am concerned, I manipulate search engine results for the benefit of my clients and/or myself if it is an affiliate site. An important secondary consideration is not annoying the surfer, after all I want them to buy something.

So, in my own mind, I'm a spammer, what I do is spamming and what I allow search engines to index is 85% spam!

The difference is I'm a very elegant spammer - who takes such a professional pride in my spam that only I know that's what it is

This last post by MakeMeTop is classic. It should be bronzed.