Who is damaging the image of SEO?

The list of people hurt by 'bad SEO' is long (see Search Engine Spam &
The Forgotten Stakeholders); but who is actually doing the damage?

Dan Thies, once a giant of White Hat SEO, now an apologist for search engine spam, has nominated four groups, and suggests that it's 'kinda hard to choose' between them.

• Newbies claiming to be experts?
• Spammers claiming to be ethical?
• Spammers who make no such claims?
• Incompetent amateurs who think link building means trading links?

Thies is more than happy to lump incompetents with professional cheats, and that's a common behaviour in the spam apologists "don't blame us"; Jill Whalen has repeatedly claimed that incompetents are more damaging than spammers.

It is, of course, rubbish. Lets review those four groups (Are there others we might consider?)

Newbies claiming to be experts

Newbies making false claims may conceivably do harm; there's no doubt about that. But as Connie argues, the newbie SEO is probably not going to hurt anybody: since they don't know anything, the sites they work on are not likely to be found. Failed seo is nothing to be proud of; and both the newbie and their clients will soon learn - the client, hopefully, that they should check on reputation before spending money.

And that's the point about 'newbies' and SEO - reputation is so important, and making false claims can destroy someone before they get going, which reduces their harm to the industry. As Doug Heil explained "I started many moons ago and offered services for free to anyone who wanted my help. It took about two years of reading forums and asking questions and helping websites 'for free' before I started charging for those services." And Doug notes that these days, people often set up first, and start learning afterward - their first mistake, and often their last. SEO is a highly competitive and cut-throat industry - whcih means that incompetence, while a problem, remains a small one, reinforcing Internet 101 - "Let The Buyer Beware"

Spammers claiming to be ethical

Spammers claiming to be ethical are probably the worst group of all; they hurt everybody to some degree, including the idiots who defend them.

The owner (or manager and production team) of the 'spamming' website can be hurt when their shenanigans are detected - and, as we know, no-one is too big to be dropped and embarassed by Google.

The SEO who advises the spamming site risks exposure and dismissal and the consequencies of that, either by a simple algo update, or by being blackballed by the industry they parasitize - some of the biggest have fallen, and there will be more.

The search engines' job is to provide accurate and useful search results; a lying spammer subverts these, financially damaging competitor sites, customers (denied an honest choice) and the The Internet as a whole is damaged by cheating and deceit.

Spammers who make no ethical claim

Spammers who spam "honestly" are still spammers - the only difference is that they share their guilt with their clients probably those who spam in connivance with the webmasters - they hurt the industry, and their clients - but the maximum damage is not to SEO, but to the client's industry - look at recent high-profile Google drops; some big companies were made a laughing stock.

Incompetent amateurs

'Who think link building means trading links' or hold other 'wrong' information.

Every industry has amateurs and new members; eating babies is not unique to SEO - though you should know better. If amateurs do harm, that is the responsibility of those that taught them.

But mainly, it's the responsibility of those who choose to protect spammers, rather than nurture our future.

A responsible professional will always protect junior members of the industry - and avoid any temptation to victimize those who know no better, in order to try and make martyrs out of the unprofessionals who exploit those who know no better.

Published: 12 March 2006
This article may be published elswhere, provided this footnote is included as is,
with a live link to the source: http://www.seo2seo.com/articles/
Copyright © 2006 Andrew Heenan. Comments very welcome.