Comments on Google's SEO guidelines
As mentioned in the updates section of this month's issue, Google recently published an outline of what they believe to be good and bad practices relating to Search Engine Optimization (SEO) companies.
Their outline is located at http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html
In general, we agree with most everything they say – especially on the topics of guaranteed a #1 ranking within their "free" section and erroneously suggesting special relationships that merit preferential treatment. Google suggests, and we concur, that such claims are false bordering on absurd.
There are sections within the guidelines, however, that speak of "shadow domains" that "funnel users to a site by using deceptive redirects". And we agree that if in fact sinister forces scheme to defraud customers, then by all means they should be ferreted out and fully punished. Fortunately we have laws and a judicial system in place to perform this function.
However, if Google is talking about legitimate companies that sell multiple products to a variety of demographically segmented markets doing their best to get appropriately listed so their target audiences can find them, then we see nothing "shadowy" or "deceptive" about such efforts to have ALL of their products and services fully represented.
Considering the fact that a "mistake" – real or imagined – can be cause for a site's excommunication, we think it prudent and wise for any given company to own multiple domains, spread out over several web hosts, with a variety of DNS servers on IP blocks that are not closely related – and even list some of them under alternate subsidiaries so if actions are misconstrued, a death sentence doesn't befall an entire online company in one fell swoop.
After all, we've seen a bevy of misunderstandings, cases of corporate espionage, and Internet connectivity problems over the years. Any one of which causes calamity and can even be the summary kiss of death unless contingency plans are firmly in place ahead of time.
Other points we take exception too...
Google suggests that companies should "Talk to many SEOs, and ask other SEOs if they would recommend the firm you're considering." While that may sound fine in theory, think about the actual conversation that Google is (ideally) suggesting should take place...
Company: Mr SEO, have you heard of brandX-SEO and would you recommend them?
SEO: Why, yes, I have. They are a fine company and we highly recommend them. So, of course, that means that since we are so honest we deserve to land your business.
Company: Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your honesty and we'll follow your recommendation by awarding our business to your competitor.
SEO: Oh, ...well, what if I hadn't recommended them?
Company: Well, that might have meant that you lacked integrity because, after all, what upstanding person would sink so low as to knock their competition?
SEO: So, you mean it was a trick question?
Company: That's right.
...obviously, whoever made that statement at Google has never gone out into the real world to see how these negotiations are done. Get real... does Ford recommend you buy a Toyota? ...or vice versa? ...are either of those companies disreputable because they neglect to recommend the other?
Google also states "You should ask how long a company has been in business and how many full time staffers it employs." ...as if length in business and size of company has anything to do with efficiency and integrity.
By following Google's insinuation on this point you may very well have selected the same company that Google, itself, used as the poster-child for deception and corruption when they pointed you to http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/07/01/spyware_inc/index.html as an attempt to illustrate how far out-of-whack things can get in the SEO business.
We knew that company (referred to in the article) during the time in question. We had personal contact with them in their heyday. They were a BIG company, publicly traded, and spoke an impressive story backed-up by what looked like irrefutable proof of their success – the result of many shenanigans. But, if you followed Google's guidelines back then asking for references and judging by size, you would have likely selected this company to do your SEO work. MANY did! ...because they were able to fabricate just about anything within the illusion of success they projected.
The simple truth is that some of the most honest, diligent, trustworthy, and capable SEO's we know are one-man-firms! For Google to even suggest they are inadequate or untrustworthy due to lack of size borders on irresponsible generalization.
Their statement, "For your own safety, you should insist on a full and unconditional money-back guarantee." ...is another that flies-in-the-face of reality. Again, this just isn't practical for SEO work in the real world. The facts of the matter include the reality there are also unscrupulous businesses who have unrealistic expectations or just flat-out refuse to pay their legitimate bills. We know of no SEO's who can afford to put in hundreds of hours on a SEO project only to be "stiffed" by a company that is disappointed they are #11 for one of their keywords – and we know for a fact that such things (and much worse) happen.
Such a recommendation only further illustrates to what degree Google is unaware of how SEO work is really done. Compare for example advertising in the real world. Does IBM, HP, Ford, or United Airlines demand or receive UNCONDITIONAL money back guarantees from their "Madison Avenue" advertising firms if they're dissatisfied with the results of their TV commercials? ...of course not.
They set their goals together and both parties live with the results. If they like the outcome, they keep doing business. If not, they part company. They are grown-ups. They make informed decisions and they take chances. One trait of an astute businessperson is the ability to avoid unrealistic expectations. SEO's and companies in need of such services should enter into their agreements with these points in mind.
And finally, Google states, "Ethical SEO firms report deceptive sites that violate Google's spam guidelines."
Such a statement seems more like wishful thinking on Google's part than a practice steeped in reality. Frankly, some of the shadiest characters we know in the SEO business make it their business to "tattle-tale" on their competitors. We've even heard stories where "violations" have been contrived with the intention to eliminate one's competition. Unfortunately, it's just not that hard to do and the problem is exacerbated by the fact the engines tend to penalize without a hearing – and without notice. Just another reason for a company to intelligently broaden their risk-exposure.
Even so, Google has reason to feel as they do...
Aside from the points we've made and looking at the situation from Google's perspective, we can understand how they feel. The service they provide is rife with inherent difficulties. Yet, when viewing the issue from the side of the business community we also see how paranoid and vulnerable most online companies have become. We know to what degree they depend on traffic that is generated from the search engines. And, whether we like it or not, we are all subject to the whims and policies of Google – an 800lb Gorilla cast into the role of judge, jury, and executioner while armed with the ability to impose death sentences carried out without notice whenever they feel transgressed. Phew! ...that's a lot of power.
Regardless, in concept we agree with Google – claiming relationships that don't exist or making false promises to consumers are not only wrong, they are punishable offenses. No one should get away with cheating or breaking any laws of commerce. Yet it's only fair to point out that Google wields an unregulated "big stick" with a lot of unchecked influence over an online company's fortunes. We can only hope that "stick" is in the hands of people who are understanding, wise and just.
Without a doubt Google has a legitimate right (and need) to protect the integrity of their index. We absolutely support them in doing so. And we encourage them to understand that succeeding online is a challenging proposition. Businesses need to use all of the legal and legitimate tools at their disposal in order to prosper – and, they are expected to. More often than not, they're competing against companies that use aggressive marketing tactics while they answer to principals and stockholders that demand profits.
Furthermore, just as brick-n-mortar companies often diversify to prosper, online companies likewise must reach demographically diverse audiences and, currently, search engines are about the only way to do that. It is reasonable to expect online companies to spread out over a broad base in the same way that off-line companies do. At the moment, that is best accomplished by diverse representation within the search engines (not to be confused with redundant mirror sites which Google has every right to object too). If such diversity is what Google interprets as "shadow domains" then we take exception to their interpretation as that lumps the legitimate in with the illegitimate.
We can only hope that Google realizes to what degree we, the online business community, are in partnership with them. We know there are a LOT of very smart people that comprise Google – we trust they'll see the wisdom in crafting policies with an eye toward supporting us in our efforts to legitimately prosper together. In the final analysis, we need each other – it's a symbiotic relationship. They provide us traffic and we give them their content.
