[Air-l] Protection against unethical practices insearchengineoptimization?

[Carmen Mardiros]

Ok then...

elijah, I don't know why you're speaking to me as if I have the plague.
You've put a 'spam' label around my neck without having a clue what I do.

Search engine algorithms were built to return relevant information to a
query. Recently the algos evolved and they now try to return websites that
are good overall. By good websites I mean with relevant information to a
query, easy to use, sites where users find what they are looking for, sites
that other sites perceive to be valuable. These are all measured by various
criteria.

A lot of SEOs manipulate some of the criteria and buy links from other
sites, stuff pages with dummy/useless text/keywords and generally clutter
the web in the hope that they'll rank #1. The algos are far from perfect and
many attain their goal. I despise these SEOs as much as you or anyone else.

Some SEOs, however, understand that by making websites generally better
these earn their high spots in search engines on merit. By "generally
better" I mean things like:

- including text that is of actual value to users and is not just filler
text
- using headings to break the page up and make it easier to scan/read
- emphasising important points
- omitting needless words and making every word tell (see Elements of Style
5th edition) which results in a naturally higher concentration of words that
people actually search for (keywords)
- writing informative titles/descriptions/headings that are appropriate to
each page so that the user knows that what he's clicking on will take him to
a page that gives him what he wants
- improving navigation and usability in general (load time, page sizes, page
names etc) for a more effective website (see Jakob Nielsen's useit.com and
Steve Krug's "Don't make me think")
- improving the technology behind the website to ensure that the sites
display well on all browsers/platforms and that disabled people (such as the
visually impaired) can use it successfully without being discriminated
against
- ensure that there are no errors that may confuse users and drive them away

These are just some of the things involved in a proper optimisation process.
The result is a website that is good for users, that people naturally link
to because it offers useful information, that benefits of word-of-mouth
because it has wider reach due to improved accessibility, that ensures a
smooth relationship between site stakeholders and users.

This sort of website earns its top spot in search engines, it does not trick
its way up to it.

Spammers may manipulate some of the criteria. But criteria change from month
to month and spammers come and go. But by making it better, more usable and
accessible, a website will stand on its own two feet and will not be brought
down by algo changes.

If improving a site, making it more usable and accessible means spamming to
you, then what isn't spam? Keeping everything at a stand still? Throwing up
a website and forgetting about it? Letting users muddle through confusing
fancy/graphics intensive/flashy websites and then discover that it doesn't
have what they were looking for?

There will always be spammers, such as there are the "bad apples" in any
industry but the fact is search engines are becoming more difficult to
manipulate so more and more webmasters give up trying to do that. They
realise that a long-term strategy based on building good websites ensures
far greater success, less risk and yes, higher profits. This goes past
optimisation, it's a mix of that and marketing, usability, accessibility and
user psychology. And that, my friend, is not "spam, crookery, annoyance or
nuisance" as you call it.

Carmen

PS: there is a document that takes the W3C accessibility guidelines point by
point and explains why adhering to them improves search engine rankings. SEO
is the best thing that has ever happened to accessibility and usability; it
has a wider appeal and it forces webmasters to realise its importance in
earning top spots in SEs. They will have to put it into practice if they
want traffic and profits, and as a result they have to improve their
websites. At this rate, SEO will turn accessibility into best practice far
quicker than any organisation could have by publishing guidelines.

>
> >> they're crooks, nuisances, and annoyances.  :)
> >> i assume that next you are going to suggest that spammers are just
> >> hardworking legitimate businessmen.
> >
> > You're labeling me without right to appeal. Just because I work in
search
> > engine optimisation doesn't mean I spam and/or support spamming. Your
mind
> > is obviously set and I'm not going to get involved in a ALL SEO = spam
> > debate which would interest nobody on this list. Please email privately
if
> > you wish to do so.
>
> you're free to explain how (and why) SE optimization isn't a bit of
> crookery or algorithmic deception - and, in fact, i'd strongly prefer that
> you do so on the list rather than taking it to private email.  [which
> actually makes you look, rhetorically, as if you don't have a set of valid
> defenses, rather than making you look more 'polite'.]
>
> a number of folks on the list might find your explanation useful and
> instructive.
>
> --elijah