SEOs Are A Part of the Problem
As an SEO you are neither the most liked nor the most respected person on the web. So what you should be doing is staying away from practices that perpetuate the negative image and stand up for the SEO community. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is that respected SEOs are doing the exact opposite.
For example, Rand Fishkin, one of the most respected people in the industry, urged his readers a few days ago to manipulate search engine rankings for the phrase "Greatest Living American" to make Stephen Colbert the number one result. What's worse is that he offered a shot at an $80 dollar reward (a 2-month subscription) to the participants.
If you're a fan of the Colbert Report (and really, if you're not, you probably don't enjoy SEOmoz, kittens, apple pie or sunshine either) and you run a site of any kind, be kind enough to slip it into a few posts or pages over the next few days and you'll have the opportunity to earn a nice reward from SEOmoz. What's that you say? A reward from SEOmoz? Yep.
While one may argue that this was all in jest and that no harm comes from this, when you look at the core of the issue, it is an SEO urging people to manipulate search engine rankings for a particular phrase, outlining how exactly to do it, and offering a reward to people who participate.
Quite unsurprisingly, the effort has worked:
Of course Rand isn't the only one guilty in this, but so is everyone who participates in this effort. I think its time to stop wondering why people hate SEOs (while doing exactly the things that hurt the image) and start taking steps to change that image.
Trackbacks (4)
- Search Marketing Gurus | Search Marketing Tips, Advice, Strategies, April 20, 2007
“Can You Afford Ponch, Search Engine Crabs or Hitwise?” — It's one of those days where everyone seems to have a lot more to say than I do, and also has a lot better articles and posts than me, so I'm going to let their articles speak for themselves. Let's take a walk on over to Matt McGee who's pointing out t...
- Marketing Pilgrim, April 24, 2007
“Linkbait Isn’t Always Best” — I know, it’s sacrilege to say this, but linkbait isn’t always the best way to promote a site. Yes, itt’s fun, creative and, when it works, highly effective. But it’s not always the best. Linkbaiting has garnered a bad name for...
- Search Engine Optimization Journal, April 24, 2007
“Google Bombs Are Proof That Link Building Works” — For example, Rand Fishkin, one of the most respected people in the industry, urged his readers a few days ago to manipulate search engine rankings for the phrase “Greatest Living American” to make Stephen Colbert the number one result. What...
- NewsAndMediaBlog.com, April 26, 2007
“The Greatest Living American: Google Bombs Are Back” — On February 13, 2007, News and Media Blog posted about Google’s change in algorithm to address the Google Bomb. For the longest time, if you were type in “miserable failure” into Google’s search box you’d find the White Ho...
Reader Comments (20)
- randfish, April 20, 2007
-
Muhammad - you're a very smart guy and one who probably knows well that things like that aren't why the community that hates SEOs hates them. Actions like the Colbert report google-bombing actually probably help the SEOs profile in the community that hates them most - developers and tech-savvy bloggers (who love Colbert).
What causes SEOs to receive ill-will is 90% automated spamming. You get spam email about SEO, you see it in your blog comments (this is probably one of the biggest culprits), you get the auto-dialer phone calls. Somehow, SEO was infected by the snake oil salesmen style tactics early on, and that's what's tough to shake. Playing games with Google's results for a pop culture figure that this community generally loves is not a cause.
I do appreciate that shout-out, though :)
- engtech, April 20, 2007
-
Ah, but can't google bombing be used for good as well, like by counteracting ask.com's the algorithm viral marketing attempt?
- Halfdeck, April 20, 2007
-
Some leading SEOs are eating away at their own credibility. They're perfectly capable of justifying their self-serving tactics to themselves but no one outside of the SEO community is buying it.
- Jeremy Steele, April 20, 2007
-
I think the biggest problem is that a lot of ethical SEOs are starting to do some pretty unethical stuff (gaming the social media networks and telling others to do the same thing, for example).
And yeah, SEO spam and Google bombing isn't helping either.
- Nathania Johnson, April 20, 2007
-
The page that's ranked as number 1 isn't even the page that Rand asked people to Googlebomb.
It was fun and I don't regret it. People will forget about this. Some of us will take down our links and the googlebomb will be over. It's not like we're ranking for miserable failure here. Some of you naysayers need to lighten up and join the fun.
This post reeks of linkbait and Digg strategy.
- Neil Patel, April 20, 2007
- Skitzzo, April 20, 2007
-
Muhammad, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one (I think for the first time ever).
The Greatest Living American thing wasn't an SEO issue at all. It was a marketing ploy/campaign executed by a highly popular television show. The host (and possibly the staff etc) is more in tune with the online world than most and knew that a large portion of his audience had webpages. Personally I think more shows should begin doing stuff like this. Its great publicity.
Spam in emails, search results, blog comments, forums, and just about every single social network site out there is why people hate "SEO's". Of course I'd contend these people are merely spammers, not true SEOs.
- Muhammad Saleem, April 20, 2007
- Skitzzo, April 20, 2007
-
Erm.. ok, see that's what I get for disagreeing with you, Mu. I thought this was something that had been promoted on his show... ahem... please pass some salt for this crow.
However, my last point remains. I think the items in that list are all much larger reasons why people hate SEOs.
- Adrienne Doss, April 21, 2007
-
Sorry, but I totally agree with Rand. Doing something goofy like this is not likely to draw the ire of the web community. It's the comment spamming, the forum spamming, the directory spamming ... spam spam spam. Not to mention the 2-3 cold calls I get each week from some shady SEO telemarketer.
- Asia, April 21, 2007
-
Whether MU is correct or not, on who started this Google Bomb, I find it very irresponsible that any SEO would publicly promote a black hat technique.
@Randfish "Playing games with Google's results for a pop culture figure that this community generally loves is not a cause."
Perhaps not a cause, but a very irresponsible and threatening statement. That statement alone is the root of the Social Network behavior vs the SEO Community.
Source: Skitzzo's Link A comment by a digg user
"Please, SEO is nothing more then deceptive traffic manipulation. You haven't earned the traffic, you hijacked it."
- randfish, April 21, 2007
-
Asia (and others) - I stand by what was done. I think it's manipulative only in that it technically manipulates, but that makes it neither reprehensible nor irresponsible. Mr. Colbert's show (and Jon Stewart's Daily Show) are both massively manipulative, but I believe they do so in positive ways. I don't claim any altruism for the action we took with the Google-bomb, but nor do I see a downside of any kind.
Suggesting that this social media community is so paranoid about any kind of marketing, use of technology for fun, or suggestion of Google's imperfection implies some very ugly things about them. I think you do the anti-SEO community a disservice, and a wretched one, but suggesting that they really would find something negative here.
Jeremy - As for this unethical stuff that SEOs are doing; manipulating Digg or Google or MySpace is no more "unethical" than Guerilla marketing methods on street corners or subways or billboards - it's far easier to ignore, far less damaging or costly and, generally, it ADDS value to these communities. You must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of SM folks if you think we can "manipulate" them so easily. The content we and others produce is successful because it's valuable and interesting. That's why Diggers vote for it and YouTubers give it 5 stars and Redditers thumb it up. These people aren't idiots, and your argument treats them as though they are.
Boy - I'm getting a little feisty for a Saturday morning... what's up with that?
- Skitzzo, April 21, 2007
-
Asia, this isn't playing games with Google's search results. Google built their system like this. It's not like someone hacked Google and put Colbert at the top of the results. This isn't even a black hat technique! White hat SEO is about getting links. Black hat is about deception etc. There is absolutely no deception here.
Google created a system where a link can be described (a bit simplistically) as a vote for the site it links to. All Rand and others did was ask people to vote. I guess politicians are manipulating governments when they ask people to vote?
- Halfdeck, April 21, 2007
-
"it ADDS value to these communities"
Yeah, and this is in line with you claiming "paid links make results more relevant." At least I can see both sides of the issue, while some SEOs seem to have their blinders on.
This particular case I don't really care about - no one was harmed and it was all in good fun, though I don't really like Colbert (I prefer John Stewart). The tactic used was also legit - people "voting" for Colbert's site how much whiter can you get?
But the Colbert deal is only one example out of many. Mu is right - SEOs are a part of the problem - Diggers didn't just woke up and decided to hate SEOers for no reason.
- Halfdeck, April 21, 2007
-
"manipulating Digg or Google or MySpace is no more "unethical" than Guerilla marketing methods on street corners or subways"
Funny, that reminds me of a begger singing "Yesterday" at 3 in the morning while I used to wait for the 9 train.
No one is saying gaming Digg is wrong - but how is it you don't seem to get the fact that SEOs manipulating social media sites might annoy community members? Or maybe etiquette is a non-issue for you as long as its not your site being violated?
I mean look at all the nofollows plastered on seomoz - I can't even get my nick to link back to my own site.
- Rhea, April 23, 2007
-
Not to be too geeky, but it's kind of like using "the force" for good or evil. No one got pissed when Dave Pasternack (the chef) was essentially google bombed to the top of the rankings over Dave Pasternack (of seo isn't rocket science fame). So, why are people upset about this? It's a joke, an absolutely hysterical one, that will garner some decent attention to the SEO community (for both the wrong and right reasons). Opening the industry up to debate is healthy for everyone involved.
Just my .02 and as I mentioned at SEL, I think Colbert has just earned his rightful place in the rankings. Perhaps SEOs had nothing to do with it and Google just adjusted their algorithm? ;-)
- Webbureau TiMedia, April 23, 2007
-
Very interesting... I feel that the best SEO is by doing it the right way.. Make a nice linkbuilding, write some interesting content and finaly do your SEO without cheating..
- randfish, April 23, 2007
-
Halfdeck - you can make that link active if you earn 100 mozpoints or points (through writing comments, getting thumbs up, etc.) Just because we protect against comment spammers (yet reward legitimate contributors) doesn't make our marketing via Digg or Netscape or Reddit hypocrisy.
Totally agree that the "marketing" is going to piss off some community members at those sites, though. It's only natural. Remember when the web was new and the first residents were complaining vehemently when stores and (shock shock!) commerce and shopping started happening online? This pattern will continue to repeat itself in the future and I don't know that's it's worth worrying about.
- Chris McElroy aka NameCritic, May 3, 2007
-
Commercialism is going to happen whether people resist it or not. I don't like billboards. Doesn't mean advertisers aren't going to put them up.
Blogs are becoming commercial in nature more and more although there is a whole segment of bloggers who believe all blogs should pretty much be just personal diaries. It won't change the fact that blogging for money is also here to stay and will only increase, even though there are blog communities that say these commercial blogs are not "legitimate blogs".
Compnies who sell products and services on the web are going to advertise their websites and build links wherever possible just as they advertise everywhere they can offline.
Resisting marketing efforts by saying they are not legitimate or by saying it isn't right does not change reality.
SEO, SEM, and advertising are necessary for companies if they want to make money on the web. Yes there are ethical ways to do this, but who gets to decide what is or is not ethical. We all have our opinions. Does that mean that others should or will abide by them? Doubtful.
The googlebomb example doesn't seem unethical to some and to others it was. Billboards are considered an eyesore by many, but to others it's a way to get their name in front of a lot of people.
There is always going to be marketing. Some will be ethical. Some will not be. We get to vote with our dollars by not doing business with those we feel use unethical practices and it's a subjective decision by each individual.
Just my opinion.
- Brandon Wirtz is the Greatest Living American, May 11, 2007
-
It Didn't work for long, I'm now the top result for the term Greatest Living American.
