As I am getting more into this area of marketing a site through “organic search,” or “SEO,” I began to start questioning some of the practices I started to do. Do I feel right doing things that go against the intent of the makers of a system, just because I can, and I will get a result from it? When is it right to create a pseudonym?

I am reading from the book The Art of Power, by Thich Nhat Hanh. He always speaks about the importance of looking deeply into the motivations for our actions. If we do this, we can preserve our personal trust in ourselves. Do I want to trick people, just because I can? Some SEO practices veer into this territory, even when most people might call them “white hat,” or “grey hat.”

I have to think about the intentions of others, so that I will be contributing to a civilization where people can trust one another. I made a personal list of things that I considered ethical, versus grey area, or black area, for me. Many practices in SEO involve working with the way Google (and other search engines) intend to find good information, and doing things that way. On the one hand, aligning with that way, can be a good way to get valuable information–your information–found by Google.

On the high end, it could even be a service, because Google does want its search results to be relevant. It does everything it can to make the highest search results reflect relevant information by genuinely interested people, with a good intention to help visitors. So, if I have a good intention to help my visitors, and this intention aligns with a business intention, then I am moving towards having a really ethical business.

On the other end, however, it is easy to try to “trick” Google, to get better results. The difference is between aligning with the way Google finds relevant information, and tricking the intent of that same formula, or algorythm. In the former, you find out how to line all the parts up, to generate a win-win solution for everybody. Everyone wins.

In the latter, you look for holes in the algorythm–exceptions or rules Google hasn’t thought of, to get past Google’s rules.

I began to construct a list of things that I felt were possible to align with, grey areas, and ones that definitely weren’t. Now, none of these things go into the realm of what would normally be called “spam.” It’s just that for me, some of the greyer things still don’t feel right. They don’t feel like a good way to contribute to the kind of world I want to be living in, where we can trust each other, and we are honest even when we don’t have to be, to avoid “getting in trouble.”

Here is a breif summary of the things I came up with:

OK: Pay a writer to write a genuinely informative, or entertaining, article, about your subject, with the keyword you’re optimizing for showing up in the text.

OK: Submit that article using your real name, to any number of article sites, with the bio pointing back to your target page.

Or paying an assistant to submit that same article for you, with that same author information.

Maybe OK: Submitting that article under a pseudonym that represents a deliberate identity, with a full profile, for purposes of creating an on-purpose persona around a particular topic.

Feels weird: Submitting that article under a persona designed to decieve the reader in some way, or hide my identity. For example, because I don’t feel good about the topic, or the submission involves practices I don’t feel really good about.

OK: Genuinely using social bookmarking services to socially bookmark a page I have helped to market, which I feel good about, and using comments I genuinely believe in, and stand by, for the purposes of having other people know about this.

Maybe not OK (feels weird): Automating the submission of these same bookmarks, or paying an assistant to submit them.

Feels weird: Creating multiple accounts on the different social bookmarking sites, designed to create the effect of multiple people showing interest in the page, where it is really only one. Submitting to sites whose content area does not reflect the page’s content, just to get another link. Simulating the feeling or organic interest without any real interest.

Online ethics is weird. Where do you draw the line? But what I can say is: violating the written terms of any social bookmarking site, because you can. It is important to pay attention to the intention of the site, because that’s really one of the main means of assessing what the alignment would be with that site.

The temptation to not tell the truth is great, because the rewards are high. Everybody wants to be first. The motivation is to veer towards believing you have the most relevant content (easier), rather than having the most relevant content. This will cause one to attempt to take short cuts.

I feel if we have the intent to create the most relevant content, then things will go better: “We want to become the very best resource on the internet for lawnmower repair.” Rather than, “we want to get to #1 on Google for ‘lawnmower repair’.” The first is a means of getting better, and placing more and more value in the world, and the second is about trying to trick the system, to get something as quickly as we can, as if there’s nothing left.

Being a facilitator of great content, aligned with Google’s guidelines, feels like a good mission. Helping people trick Google so that they can get more hits is not a mission I want to become involved in.

One vision is one of facilitating great content, and earning attention. The other is a vision of stealing attention.

OK: Posting a relevant comment on a forum or blog, that genuinely adds to the conversation. Then, adding a link back to the relevant target page. Put attention on providing valuable content, contributing to the discussion, and then giving your credit. Maybe 45–65% of the attention on providing the content.

Feels weird: Posting a comment that is really just a filler, in order to create the effect of a genuine comment, with 95% of the attention on getting the link. Paying someone to get a link, when they don’t care about it.

OK: Using your marketing activity to attract the genuine attention of others, to create more traffic. For example: using a StumbleUpon campaign to generate traffic from organic visitors, to an exciting and interesting page.

Feels weird: Creating the illusion that a group of different people are interested in something.

The first method involves creating spikes of interest that can precipitate a flood of interest in something of genuine value. The second involves simulating interest.

OK:

• Automating submission to video sites, podcast, sites, press release sites, etc., of genuinely valuable and relevant content
• Arranging articles to enhance the perception of relevance to Google (based on its genuine relevance)
• Professional association listings
• Relevant Craigslist postings, aligned with their rules
• Creating actual software related to a produce, to submit to software listing sites

Feels weird:

• Creating “software,” that’s not really software, to trick the software sites into giving you a backlink

The overall feel here is that there are different visions of an SEO’s role.

The first, is as a content producer, aligned with the purposes of advancing the value of information on the web, and in my client’s content area. It places most of the emphasis on producing quality, and then utilizing techniques aligned with the intentions of the sites’ visitors and the sites’ intentions, to direct attention to my client’s site.

It encourages me to encourage my client to produce something of real value. To align with the way the web is intended to work. It puts my client in the business of producing real value. And I suspect, like all aspects of life, the net effect over time, will be, that more and more outside people will begin to praise this site, and give it genuine attention, which is what Google wants, and what the world needs more of.

By contrast, the other vision of the SEO is rather like a carnival barker to me, a kind of a huckster. Someone who knows how to work the system. Anway, that’s how it feels to me.

As I explored this, I felt a renewed excitement to play the former role for my clients, and help them produce great quality, understand their market well, and get the full credit due for it!