Just found this article while on Digg, thought everyone might want to take a look. It has quotes from a lot of different ethical SEOs talking about how unethical SEO companies will try to scam you. If you're thinking about hiring an SEO, it's a good read.

It's business, scam artist will alway try to scam you. When buy any type of product or service if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

I get nervous when somebody says "I'm an ethical SEO" or "I only market sites using ethical means".

It reminds me of a car salesman saying "You can trust me". I think if you went to one of the best, most prestigious (probably most expensive) SEO firms, they won't tell you they're ethical, because there isn't any doubt. I think when a person has to point out how ethical they are, there's reason for doubt. Maybe that means they became an SEO because they got really good at spamming, and all of a sudden it stopped working, so they're trying a new approach they read about on DP. Maybe I'm just too cynical?

What if the company has a name like "Ethical SEO, Inc." or "Integrity Used Cars, Inc." or "Professional Mortgage Corp"

Doesn't that prove they're ethical and have integrity since it's in their name?

Some of the scams and stories are pretty funny, though also sad in that people do believe them.

Doesn't that prove they're ethical and have integrity since it's in their name?

Funny Mike. Why are phrases like 'seo guru' 'seo expert' 'seo master' etc suddenly coming to mind?

Originally Posted by VirtuosiMedia

Just found this article while on Digg, thought everyone might want to take a look. It has quotes from a lot of different ethical SEOs talking about how unethical SEO companies will try to scam you. If you're thinking about hiring an SEO, it's a good read.

I'm surprised the article got so many Diggs. It just a bunch of SEO's all saying the same thing... "there are a lot of shady SEO's." Excuse me put isn't this a case of stating the obvious over and over again!

So let me join the choir... "There are a lot of shady SEO's out there."

interesting read...... what should you look for then if you want to hire someone who will do your SEO for you legitimately?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I get nervous when somebody says "I'm an ethical SEO" or "I only market sites using ethical means".

It reminds me of a car salesman saying "You can trust me". I think if you went to one of the best, most prestigious (probably most expensive) SEO firms, they won't tell you they're ethical, because there isn't any doubt. I think when a person has to point out how ethical they are, there's reason for doubt. Maybe that means they became an SEO because they got really good at spamming, and all of a sudden it stopped working, so they're trying a new approach they read about on DP. Maybe I'm just too cynical?

I don't know if I really have a problem with SEOs calling themselves ethical (even though, in this case, it was the writer of the article that called them that and not the SEOs themselves), but if they do call themselves ethical, at the very least, they need to be willing to disclose their methods to their clients. The spamming thing is a whole other can of worms.

The funny thing about people calling themselves 'ethical SEOs' is that it's often a marketing ploy. The idea being we're ethical where those other guys aren't. Someone who's ethical doesn't really need to point it out. It's usually pretty obvious from how they conduct themselves.

Good article. It's seems that the back hat techniques and fraud haven't changed in a while though and more and more people are writing about it. At some point, they will all be well known from everyone. SEO junk mails have an real negative impact on the market as some people tend to think that SEO is just a big scam from a bunch of geeks playing with stuff the client can't understand and therefore charging way too much due to that lack of clear information on what they are doing.

Originally Posted by Local SEO

I'm surprised the article got so many Diggs. It just a bunch of SEO's all saying the same thing... "there are a lot of shady SEO's." Excuse me put isn't this a case of stating the obvious over and over again!

No. If it was, those articles wouldn't get Dugg. It's obvious to everybody in this room that most SEO's are unethical. But it's obviously not obvious to their clients!

Originally Posted by VirtuosiMedia

I don't know if I really have a problem with SEOs calling themselves ethical

I don't have a problem with it, either - I just wouldn't be likely to trust them. If somebody wants to waive red flags, that's their right. I just rally do see it as a red flag.

It's obvious to everybody in this room that most SEO's are unethical.

It's not obvious to me. I don't think most SEOs are unethical. I think most of the people who think the majority of SEOs are unethical only see a very small subset of people who call themselves SEOs and decide everyone must be like that small subset.

The typical person you see with an 'seo expert' like username is hardly representative of the industry. It's like seeing a bunch of script kiddies and drawing the conclusion that all programmers are lacking in programming skills.

Or maybe since there are a large number of people who use their programming skills to break into computer networks and steal credit cards and other information it's ok for me to say most programmers are criminals.

Most of the SEOs I know are highly ethical people. They don't go out risking their client's sites for the sake of a quick buck. They give honest advice and do what they can to help.

I'm not denying there are unethical people in the industry, but there are unethical people in all industries. It's not fair to label an entire industry based on a subset of that industry.

Originally Posted by vangogh

I think most of the people who think the majority of SEOs are unethical only see a very small subset of people who call themselves SEOs and decide everyone must be like that small subset.

I don't think I've met more than 1 or 2 SEOs in real life, but I don't need to. I can see their work without seeing them face to face.

Originally Posted by vangogh

The typical person you see with an 'seo expert' like username is hardly representative of the industry.

I agree, but I seriously doubt these people are having much overall impact. If you look at Wikipedia's history with spammers, tho - that's just one example, but a high profile one.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Or maybe since there are a large number of people who use their programming skills to break into computer networks and steal credit cards and other information it's ok for me to say most programmers are criminals.

And, if this was the only exposure most people had to the fruits of the computer programming industry, I think this would be a valid conclusion. On the other side of the fence, a billion people who've never heard of SEO or dreamt that people might be interested in search engines (for any reason) know about cleaning spam out of their blog comments. Maybe that's all one guy with software (made by a programmer!), but the effect on the world is large and pervasive.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Most of the SEOs I know are highly ethical people.

But by the same logic, I think you only know the moral part of the industry.

John I think you're taking your own bias and trying to put it out there as fact.

I don't think I've met more than 1 or 2 SEOs in real life, but I don't need to. I can see their work without seeing them face to face.

So by your own admission you don't really know people in the industry yet it's ok to call most of them unethical? Again that's not fair. You're basing your opinion on a very small subset of the industry. You can't apply that to the entire industry.

How many people do you think have tried to spam Wikipedia? Ever consider it might be a subset of people spamming a lot of pages. Many spammed Wikipedia pages aren't spammed by SEOs. It's often done by non SEOs who are doing something spammy. I'm not saying there aren't SEOs who have spammed the Wikipedia, bit it's hardly most of them.

Just because you've only had exposure to one side of something doesn't mean that's the whole thing. I could say you haven't bothered to find out. You looked at one aspect of something and made a biased decision against the rest of it. I'd considered that highly unethical.

I think you only know the moral part of the industry.

Yes I would say I'm more connected to the ethical part of the industry. I do know people within the industry who are both ethical and unethical though. I mentioned the people I know as a counterpoint to what you were saying. Between the two of us though, I think I've probably encountered a lot more people within the industry than you have.

I won't claim to have had a whole ton of exposure to either side of the aisle. I've been on Sphinn and it seems like most of the people there are pretty genuine, at least from what I've read. I also know that there are some people who are intentionally unethical because I've read some of their blogs and forums and I can see their spammy comments all over the web. I think the vast majority of the people that I see, however, are simply uninformed. They hear a few buzzwords and read about some practices that don't really work any more and they don't bother to investigate any further or stop to ponder the ethical and/or long term ramifications and instead dive right in to marketing to clients for SEO.

Is that unethical? Maybe, but I personally feel like it might be more out of ignorance than anything else. A lot of people don't have good business sense and they hear that they can make a quick buck doing SEO. That's kind of why I side a little more on the user optimization and creating value side when I give advice. I know marketing and SEO are very important pieces, but people will hear about them far more than the former. I feel that if I'm going to err in give advice, erring on the side of quality and user experience is better than giving out specific advice (that can change at any time) about how to rank higher in the search engines. That said, SEO is still vital. That's just my two cents.

Of course, the squeaky wheel is the one you wind up hearing about...

Great work.......interesting .....

Originally Posted by vangogh

John I think you're taking your own bias and trying to put it out there as fact.

I'm suggesting what seems obvious to me, and then pointing to actual facts to back my observations up. You're interpreting the facts differently. I'm pretty sure I'm very close to the mark on this one.

Originally Posted by vangogh

So by your own admission you don't really know people in the industry yet it's ok to call most of them unethical?

Nobody in this forum has met a South American dictator face to face either, and yet we all despise them. I haven't met very many SEO workers face to face, and yet I don't need to, in order to see what SEO has brought to the world. I'm not saying the industry is evil like dictatorship, but this is an example we can all relate to. Everybody is allowed to have an opinion of GWB without having met him in person - SEO is the same, with no special protection. Saying a person can't have or share an opinion until they've met every SEO on the planet is an untenable way to stifle legitimate criticism.

Originally Posted by vangogh

How many people do you think have tried to spam Wikipedia? Ever consider it might be a subset of people spamming a lot of pages.

Sure - I even said as much in the message you're objecting to. It's also theoretically possible that all the gold in California was extracted by just one or a small subset of people.

Van Gogh, Chris Hirst, and Virtuous Media are the 3 SEOs or SEOish people in this forum who routinely demonstrate strong ethics. For each of you, there are more than 500 people asking "How do I find high PR blogs to spam?" Go over to DP, and for the 1 guy with ethics, there are more like 50,000 without. Look at the comments on Matt Cutts's blog, and it's back to around the 500:1 you see here. Add Wikipedia. Add my blog, and most others hosted on WordPress or Blogger, which I used to have. This is a statistically valid sample, at least by the size.

Originally Posted by vangogh

Many spammed Wikipedia pages aren't spammed by SEOs.

This might be the key to our disagreement? I think a person doing "link building" is a SEO, whether they know what those letters stand for or not. I also think something that waddles and quacks is a duck. Somebody who makes those phishing sites, who says "I'm not a programmer, but I can write some code" is in fact a programmer, at least while they're writing code. If a "role" is defined as what people in that role do, than people doing that task fit into that role, whether they know about it or not.

Originally Posted by vangogh

I'm not saying there aren't SEOs who have spammed the Wikipedia, bit it's hardly most of them.

Nobody said "Most SEOs have spammed Wikipedia". It would be surprising if most SEOs had focused effort on 1 particular web site. But total all wikis, all forums, all blogs, etc, and the picture changes. Is it most SEOs? We need a census to know. Is it a substantial number? You bet!

Originally Posted by vangogh

Just because you've only had exposure to one side of something doesn't mean that's the whole thing.

This, of course, is true. So is its converse - just because a person has only seen most, not all, of the fruits of a tree, doesn't make that person's opinion untrue.

Originally Posted by vangogh

I could say you haven't bothered to find out. You looked at one aspect of something and made a biased decision against the rest of it. I'd considered that highly unethical.

How? In all you've written, this seems to be entirely based on the fact that I haven't met 100 % of SEOs in the world, face to face. You've made it very clear you don't like my conclusion, but haven't given any actual reason to believe that conclusion is not true.

John I won't go through everything point by point. I appreciate your opinion and think you're entitled to it. Like I've said I agree there are those in the industry who's ethics deserve to be questioned.

It bothers me when people throw out statements like "most SEOs are..." without proof and you aren't offering proof. You're offering opinion based on limited casual observation. That's not to minimize your opinion or the observation. Both are valid, but neither is fact.

Just because someone builds links doesn't make them an SEO. If tomorrow I decided to offer medical services does that suddenly implicate the medical profession? No it would implicate me. I think there are people who do spammy things in regards to search engines that aren't part of the industry. You can't start including anyone you think as unethical into the SEO industry in order to show that SEOs are unethical. Not everyone who practices seo is someone who works as an SEO.

I agree with VM that it's often people who are misinformed as opposed to unethical. I've watched people come to this forum for years and ask a question only to get replies shouting them down as spammers. Often these people aren't trying to spam anything. They're just asking a question or making a statement based on misinformation. And sometimes they're simply wrong about something. That doesn't make them unethical.

John your conclusion isn't based on facts. If you have proof great, but all I've seen is opinion. Characterizing an entire group of people based on an opinion that comes from observing a few is unethical. To me it's more unethical when it's being used to accuse others of a lack of ethics.

I think you have strong opinions and again your opinion is valid. But it's not fact.

Also it's one thing if you said something like 'the practice is posting links to the Wikipedia to manipulate search rankings is unethical.' It's something completely different though to say that Most SEOs are unethical.

Here's your original statement in this thread that I objected to

It's obvious to everybody in this room that most SEO's are unethical. But it's obviously not obvious to their clients!

There's nothing factual in that statement. You're essentially trying to put words in everyone's mouth as though it's clear we agree. Not everyone does. I won't speak for anyone else. I'll only speak for myself. I don't agree with the word 'most.' I think some SEOs are unethical the same way I think some doctors are unethical and some police officers are unethical and some teachers are unethical.

Like it or not there are unethical people everywhere and some of them happen to be SEOs. But that's not the same as saying most of the profession is unethical.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not fair to express it as a fact unless you have proof. And proof is not an observation of one or a few. If you say 'most' then you need to have proof about 'most'

You also don't have the right to imply that everyone else agrees with you when no everyone does.