SEO Standards: Are We Really Pretending these Will Work?

I’m going to take my turn kicking the dead horse that is the “seo standards” because quite honestly, I’m absolutely amazed that this is even being proposed. The entire concept of SEO standards is both wrong and impossible for so many reasons, that I will probably have to skimp on a few to preserve some hard drive space on my server(a hyperbole, but deal with it).



For those unfamiliar, the term “seo standards” refers to a set of “best practices” and “risk ratings” for SEOs. Reasons for it include it being a guide for newbies, and as a way for customers to tell if they’re getting ripped off by high risk SEOs. And it’s a way for “ethical” SEOs to separate themselves from the rest of us riff-raff.



“Risk” is a Variable that Is Impossible to Define

Chris Boggs has very much hit on the point of “assigning risk ratings” to various SEO tactics. Let me explain something. Risk is dependent on niche. Someone trying to rank(and stay ranked) for “buy viagra” is going to have a LOT more leniency with certain gray area tactics than someone trying to rank for “knitting supplies”.

Or how about cloaking vs. IP delivery? They’re quite similar. Is IP delivery, specifically okayed by Google risky? Oh…well what if it’s IP delivery by geographic location? Or what if the page changes by language? Or what about what some forums do where they add a “You must register first” window, and move all the real content down the page? What if I want to show Yahoo and Google different pages?

If You’re Doing Everything the Same as Everyone Else, You’re Doing Something Wrong

I’m sorry, but with so many people in this field charging ridiculous fees(some, not all) you BETTER be packing something that won’t be in their little “seo standards” manual. Most people who I know have their own tricks for getting in, and hell if they are going to want to spill these to a “seo standards” just so their clients will ok them. Keep in mind, these aren’t tricks like doorway pages. Whitehat all the way.

There Will be a Loss of Competitive Edge for those who Comply

People taking on clients are going to want to comply with these all the way should they come out, just because the client will want this. But that will likely leave out most personal tricks, gray area techniques that most SEOs end up doing(including, but FAR from limited to paid links). So in order to keep the client happy, you get the joy of trying to compete as essentially the SEO version of amputee. And also, this could have severe legal implications. Someone that wants to rank for, let’s say “las vegas casinos” is going to most likely need a few things at least a little against Google TOS(some self made links, purchased links, whatever). Now, if that client ends up getting the Google smackdown, they can come back and complain that the SEO was using “high risk tactics” that anyone familiar with the industry is going to know is quite necessary for the niche. And they have a concrete document that will probably be written incredibly naively agreeing with them.

What Happens When the Google TOS and These Rules Disagree and it’s already circulated?

I’ve heard a few references that these could serve as guidelines for newbies as a shortcut to reading the blogs.

But obviously these “standards” would be copied all over the net. So what happens if some day Google decides that something “low risk” in the standards doc is high risk? Who among us really things they can manage to get every messageboard post, every local copy, and every PDF changed so we don’t end up advising newbies to do things that will get their sites nailed?

How about this ladies and gents. How about instead, just point them to the Google TOS, and then SEOBook (no aff link) or something similar? Or how about they just learn like EVERYONE else did?

Conclusion: You are SEOs. Deal with Your Problems Like SEOs

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Don’t like all the dirty SEOs out there? OUTRANK THEM. I’m not a commercial SEO. I don’t do consultations, I don’t do linkbuilding for others. But everyone who is, come on guys! Allow me to illustrate this example.

Right now, when I search for “search engine optimization”, 3 of the top 10(and indeed in the better ranks) are several sites bragging about how they can “submit your site to 40+ search engines” and other such crap. Does NO ONE out there wonder how these obviously crap services ranked for such a competitive term? Here’s a hint: It’s probably not in Papa Cutt’s “best practices”, and it’s insane how long they’ve been stable in the top 10.

So to those people out there better than these people, how about just outranking them? Kill their business off as an SEO should. Not with some bogus standards that will only serve to confuse and complicate the environment.



-XMCP