SEO Shenanigans Pose a Clear and Present Danger to Social Media

As someone who reads a lot of blogs about search and social media (a term I am still not nuts about but has stuck), I have recently witnessed a disturbing trend. Some respected experts are advocating launching social media marketing programs solely for the purpose of influencing search engines, rather than with the intent of fostering collaboration and genuine communication.

This represents a clear and present danger to the fabric of the community. If you care about the social web, then you should be alarmed.

Search engine optimization (SEO) professionals of late seem poised to take over blogs, digg, StumbleUpon and other sites with a range of tactics, some legit, others more questionable with the intent of building Google Juice and nothing more. Read these blogs and you'll see it's often all they're talking about. I am not the only one out there who feels this way.

Consider some of the following blog posts that I found in my Google Reader database...

Boost Organic Results. Link Build with Social Media (Search Engine Watch)

The Inconvienent Truth About Social Media Marketing (Search Engine Land)

Building a Company With Social Media (Search Engine Land)

Realizing SEO benefits through blogging (HitTail)

How to Use Blogs, Podcasts, Wikis and Other Social Media Tools to Find New Clients, Make Money and Create the Lifestyle of Your Dreams (Conference)

To be clear, I do not object to the way that blogs, digg links and Wikipedia rank highly in search results. What does get me hot and bothered is when consultants and bloggers propose launching such an initiatives solely for influencing search. SEO, like word of mouth, should be a byproduct outcome, not a primary objective. Any brand that plays in this space should be aiming to create value. Do that and the other stuff will follow.

But the SEO shenanigans for the sake of SEO has to stop. If you're going to play in our sandbox, follow the community's (unwritten) rules.

Comments

[Scott Monty]

Exactly. If you're creating great content about what's relevant to you & your brand, the organic search results will reward you for that. Why try to game the system if you're not earning the search results?

If your content doesn't match the SEO tactics, you're simply guilty of bait & switch.

[Yvonne DiVita]

"If you're going to play in our sandbox, follow the rules." Does that apply to blog ethics - such as not attacking another blogger's integrity or business, just because YOU don't agree with it? I've spent a whole week defending my POD business as legitimate (no, I do not lure desperate authors into my web, and make millions off of their naievity)... and yes, I admit what I can and cannot do for them. But, an established screenwriter took not only ME to task (calling me a liar, calling my business a scam, and openly saying anyone who can't get a 'real' publisher isn't worth getting into print)... he also took the group blog I contribute to, to task...

So, is he a troll? Was his attack - because that's what it was - on me, my integrity, and my business model, just a way to generate traffic to his blog? His negativity continues, but I have stopped responding. I am, however, fairly upset by the malicious way he came after me.

Will blog SEO be my undoing? Will Google now see me as he sees me? It's worrisome. The blog, btw, is called Beneath the cover. The truly offending post he wrote has been removed, but all else remains.

[THespos]

I agree with you, but I don't think it's realistic to expect people to act in ways contrary to their self-interest. As I said at the Hyperlinked Society Conference, I think it would probably be easier to get Google to tweak its algorithms such that the system isn't so easy to game.

[RIck Julian]

Interesting perspective, Steve

Here's our POV. We're a branding agency that recently launched our website. It's in Flash. All of it. Making it one of the least SEO friendly assets web assets imaginable. Now, we need to drive traffic there to elevate awareness and share our story, and we also need a blog to foster the "collaboration and genuine communication" you mentioned. We also need our (separately developed in HTML) blog to be the focus of our SEO, because it is the most SEO friendly asset we have available, and hope to encourage readers to click through to our main website if they like the thoughts they've read.

I agree that blogging simply for SEO, without a significant commitment to generating meaningful content is a threat to social media, but also wanted to point out the utility that content focused *and* SEO oriented blogs can have.

Best,
Rick Julian
www.quo-vadis.tv

[Sante]

Hello Steve & Fellow Micropersuasion Readers,
I am one of those SEO guys you mentioned in your post. A 100% white hat professional with 13 years of experience of SEO and search marketing, I tend to call Web Marketing.

Like in all professions you'll find good and bad, reliable and untrustworthy, professionals and quacks so I won't go down that path - we've all been there before.

In principle I agree with you, although I wouldn't read too much into these posts - any professional worth naming will tell you that SEO efforts are a relentless effort to acquire:

- Reputation
- Authority

the rest is small talk.

SEO has changes dramatically over the past years and the overlap with PR and traditional media is increasing day by day.

I think we need to unite the best of the 2 worlds

[Pinny Cohen]

Steve, I agree somewhat, but can you think of a solution to this whole mess? Because, as far as I can tell, no one has come up with a way to fix it.

[graywolf]

except of course they aren't your rules, they are googles. You all blindly accepted google's rules because you wanted their traffic, and now you're upset that other people who want that same traffic aren't doing things the way you want them to.

It's a competition not a playground. While I don't advocate people coming around dumping garbage without a care in the world, you have to understand everybody has to play in the sandbox.

I'm sure every single person has walked into an art museum at some point and seen something they thought that looked like piece of refrigerator artwork that came home with a kindergarten child. However some art critic or museum curator thought highly enough of the piece to put it there, just because you don't think it has value, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

[Steve Rubel]

@Pinny there are several solutions:

1) Self-policing: we openly call out any effort to harm the community through link baiting or programs that are not genuine. This will deter their efforts.

2) Teach: Let's show SEO professionals that what works best are programs that have meaning

3) Talk: We should have conversation out in the open on this subject and get perspectives from all sides.

[Shara Karasic]

Real content of real value wins out in the long term. The online world is very, very transparent, so tricksters beware. Trust means a great deal, and a ruined reputation is hard to rebuild. If you are creating something of value and sharing that, you will do fine.

[graywolf]

>Teach: Let's show SEO professionals that what works best are programs that have meaning

What works best is doing things that give the google algo what it's looking for. Right now Google is weighting value/links from blogs and social sources, if they didn't no one would waste their time trying to game them.

[Bruce Keener]

Thanks. Your post was timely, in that I needed a recalibration. As someone who runs a small blog, trying to turn it into a bigger one, it is so easy to fall into the trap of looking for the "tricks" that bring success. But, I am finding that nothing is more important than content. If I converted all the time I spent reading about SEO into time developing good content, I am convinced I would be much better off.

BTW, I liked your Reader Survey so much that I somewhat mimicked it. It is a fantastic use of the Google Spreadsheet Forms feature, and I would never have thought of it on my own. It is bringing some valuable input to me. Thank you.

[Tim Peter]

And violence and nudity on television poses a danger to American culture. And rap music poses a danger to our junior high students' values... and so on.

It's popular - and always has been - to fear for a medium due to the practices of some users of that medium. But just as radio and TV provide us a way to change the channel, so do social nets. Unfriend. Unfollow. Block.

A good friend of mine is using a popular social net solely to promote her business. Which is a shame, as I'd like to know how her husband and kids are doing, too. But, instead, all I get are invites to play some "awesomely viral game" or watch "a hysterically funny video." I don't. I have changed the channel.

Very few people will argue with using these systems to promote business or drive sales or generate revenue if those activities represent a part of who you are. But as Shel Israel notes, "Brands don't Twitter. People Twitter." If you choose only to be a brand, than I suspect your social activities aren't social. They're advertising. And we can always change the channel during advertising.

[Tim Peter]

I neglected the link to Shel's quote. It's available here.

[David Tillinger]

I find myself divided on this issue. On one hand, the emphasis should always be on creating better content. In a perfect world, just having the best content would be enough to generate comments and web hits. But on the other hand, the practical reality is that all the content in the world isn't going to get you a readership unless people can find you.

There has to be a balance between the two. Unfortunately, it is necessary to do some SEO to get a readership, especially for a smaller or newer blog. But at the same time, being number one on Google isn't going to help you much is your content is not strong. Like I said, there needs to be a balance.

[Thomas M. Schmitz]

I feel like someone missed the memo. It was called the 5 Pillars of Social Media Optimization (http://tinyurl.com/ulyqm). Make no mistake, Social Media was adopted early and developed by major PR firms with the intention of earning high rankings.

Social Media Optimization content does not replace target market content. It actually is designed for a 2nd target market and doubles the amount of work which must be done.

Most people who visit Amazon.com never write a review, create a list or engage in other social community activities. The same is true for the vast majority of websites and it is equally true that most people who visit websites do not publish their own content and will never link to you. To get those links, links that earn authority and trust from the search engines and result in high rankings, you have to create compelling valuable content for the small population that does publish original content and link to websites in your field, industry or niche.

So I contend that this is not an either/or proposition. To succeed on the Internet from a website presence you must serve and market to both targets with equal vigor.

[Don Crowley]

Thanks for that Steve. They say the semantic web might solve some of these problems... I don't think they will. Professional integrity does no end of good though :)

[Russell Page]

Hook, line and sinker on the link bait post by micropersuasion.

[Rich Pearson]

Great post - this has to be especially frustrating to media companies who have great content, but they aren't being rewarded due to lack of SEO understanding and social media shenanigans.

There are some leaders out there who are embracing content proliferation to reap the benefits of their content - the New York Times and CondeNet are the first to come to mind.

I only hope that the remaining media companies don't continue to hold their content back - it's their greatest asset to succeed online in the Google Economy

[Jacob Morgan]

Hi Steve,

As an online marketing and SEO consultant I can definitely say that I agree with you. In my opinion most SEO's/online marketers forget to realize that SEO is a marketing tool not a ranking tool. Sticking a website in front of someone is not going to make them buy something and placing a video on youtube is not going to make anyone watch it, let alone visit the main domain. What's going on here is SEO spam, and it's ridiculous. All sorts of brand/companies with high page ranks are leveraging that to pass on page rank to their new existing pages, and then those pages shoot up as well. I am currently working on an account for a large enterprise client and their overall strategy is to rank for as many keyterms as they can, as long as those terms are somehow related to their business, completely the wrong strategy.

However I believe that SEO spam is a necessarily evil for the evolution of search and online marketing. Once search engines and social media companies begin to really understand what is going on, the game will change.

Great post, I only wish more SEO's felt the way I do. nobody likes/wants spam.

[Jacob Morgan]

Hi Steve,

As an online marketing and SEO consultant I can definitely say that I agree with you. In my opinion most SEO's/online marketers forget to realize that SEO is a marketing tool not a ranking tool. Sticking a website in front of someone is not going to make them buy something and placing a video on youtube is not going to make anyone watch it, let alone visit the main domain. What's going on here is SEO spam, and it's ridiculous. All sorts of brand/companies with high page ranks are leveraging that to pass on page rank to their new existing pages, and then those pages shoot up as well. I am currently working on an account for a large enterprise client and their overall strategy is to rank for as many keyterms as they can, as long as those terms are somehow related to their business, completely the wrong strategy.

However I believe that SEO spam is a necessarily evil for the evolution of search and online marketing. Once search engines and social media companies begin to really understand what is going on, the game will change.

Great post, I only wish more SEO's felt the way I do. nobody likes/wants spam.

[Patrick Grote]

Google will be along shortly with a new tag to prevent this from entering search engine indexes. no_social. lol

[Tabitha Smith]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Now if companies just realized that, I'd be good.

[ian]

So, Steve, does this mean that writing a blog for the sake of promoting yourself is manipulating the medium, too?

Good SEO doesn't manipulate rankings. It just makes sure that a site is clearly and correctly categorized and easily crawled by search engines.

Good social media optimization adds value to the readers, too. Otherwise the community buries them. If you read more on each of those sites, you'll see that they emphasize quality, unique content as the only way to build a solid campaign.

Next time you decide to cast aspersions, consider a little research, first.

[Danny Sullivan]

Perhaps social media presents a clear and present danger to SEO? I mean, when social news sites can easily outrank original source documents -- and you're the author of that document -- what, Steve -- sit back and suck it up?

And you're about public relations. If you're watching your brand unable to attain visibility in search, which is a major public relations venue, do you ignore a community, collaborative site that can help you get that visibility? Will Edelman be stopping all the influencing activities it undertakes to attain PR for clients?

To paraphrase what you wrote, from the perspective of being a reporter....

"To be clear, I do not object to the way that news sites rank highly in search results. What does get me hot and bothered is when consultants and public relations professionals propose launching such an initiatives solely for influencing the author of those news sites. PR, like word of mouth, should be a byproduct outcome, not a primary objective. Any brand that plays in this space should be aiming to create value. Do that and the other stuff will follow."

IE, the next time you're dealing with some client asking for visibility, just tell them that hey, if they have a great brand, good PR will be a byproduct.

Steve, SEO and more accurately -- social media marketing (lots of the stuff you dislike isn't done by SEOs by by SMM) -- play a role in the community sites. They are not going away. They can even improve the community sites in the same way that they already improve search by often making good content be more visible or spotting problems with how search engines work. For social media sites, they often do propose good stories in a way that the communities think "cool" and they often do find problems when those communities aren't operating the way they should (bury brigades, friending clans).

[Indus Khaitan]

Steve,

I think, it's not the SEOs, it's how Search Engines have boxed us to think in a particular way. We have taken it for given that a page's content is only good, if we have pointers (read, hyperlinks) coming to it.

SEOs are finding new and innovative ways of link building (isn't what it is all about?). There are industry conferences and talks around the topic -- from eBooks on effective digging, to blog networks, to exploiting social media for the same.

Unless we figure out a way to measure a content by it's own weight, there will be only two types of sites, ones showing up in first 3 pages of a SERP and others which are part of the other million results.

[Kevin Heisler]

Brilliant post - you raised lots of important questions we've been discussing at Search Engine Strategies and in Search Engine Watch. Like SES Toronto chair Andrew Goodman (who replied on his Traffick.com blog), I posted a reply on the Search Engine Watch blog. (Warning: there's humor in my post but no smiley faces, winks or lol's.)

The SEO/SEM/SMO community has matured enough not to view debate and a different POV as an attack. Plus we have a lot of fun. SEO industry leaders at SES London like Mike Grehan, Christine Churchill, Frederick Marckini, Anne Kennedy, Greg Jarboe, Kevin Ryan, Andrew (and many others) didn't take themselves too seriously in Islington. But they all engaged in intelligent discussion of social media marketing and search engine optimization.

I'd like to invite you to guest blog on Search Engine Watch (or SearchDay) to continue the conversation. With Search Engine Strategies New York coming up on St. Patrick's Day, there's no better time to micropersuade our global audience.

Danny's comments are interesting in light of Sphinn, where social media marketers don't want to be "optimized" or distracted by "SEO shenanigans" of any kind. I'm a member of the Sphinn and Search Engine Watch Forums communities. You can read my SphinnDebates with Danny in the Sphinn Comments.

Are lots of SEOs now doing social media marketing? Sure. Social media doesn't present a clear and present danger to SEO. Not by a long shot.

SEOs don't need to be defended by industry leaders any more. SEOs and SMMs can defend themselves. That's the democracy of the Web.

Needless to say, you're welcome to be my guest for any and all sessions of SES New York. We'll even buy you a green beer or two.

[Pinny Cohen]

@Steve Rubel:

Interesting for #2+#3, but #1 has a hole I think: the problem here is that your policing wouldn't reach the people who are most affected by SEO tactics in the first place - the newbies.

[Danny Sullivan]

Steve, I added a second comment but forgot to push submit (that captcha caught me out).

It was to add that if you go through what many of our columnist talk about in terms of social media, it's that you're most effective if you are an active, contributing member of the community. This is a consistent message that goes out -- don't do drive-bys, don't do self-interest posts, don't pee in the pool. I'd encourage you to be sure you're reading much of what the pros are writing in terms of the space -- they are indeed putting out useful, appropriate advice that can help social media, not hurt it.

Happy to talk more when we're out at the Ad Age Digital Media Conference next month in New York. Hey, we could always do a point/counterpoint with our next columns in the magazine :)

[aaron wall]

Since when is a PR guy concerned about how wrong it is to game media? I mean...I spoke at a PR agency once, and their walls were plastered with framed media articles that favored their clients. How is that any different then a blogger linking to my content because they like it?

Meanwhile, I found this great Wal-Mart story on this interesting "blog" that you really ought to check out. A PR firm was behind that blog.

Spare me, dude.

[Giovanna]

Dear Steve Rubel,

Hello, and thank you so much for writing this blog post. You opened my eyes to the truth and I owe you for it.

I believe a huge PR firm (Edelman or something) was associated with a misleading and phony Pro-Walmart blog. Sir, I am sure that you are a very intelligent man. I am also certain that you are aware that the Walmart owned Sam's Club offer SEO services.

I want to help you so here's the link to Sam's SEO service:
http://samsbiz.com/page/1dmiu/Online_Advertising.html

I totally understand where are coming from. How dare this Edelman client offer SEO/SEM service. Oh boy, I just hope that they didn't offend you buy offering such sleazy service.

All the best and cheers to you

[Charlie Anzman]

This never-ending battle seems to be playing out daily on Sphinn and on social sites with name-calling and more. It seems some new definitions are in order. Up until very recently I may have actually agreed with this but times are changing and I find myself embracing some of the very people I've 'called out' in the past.

The line between SEO, SEM, Internet Marketing, Websites and blogs has gotten very thin. It's the dialog that's important.

The reality is that Google is probably delivering some of the best results right now in their history?

[Michael Tangeman]

Important post, Steve, and I agree with you that this is a real threat to the integrity of social media.

I also agree with Sante's comments that any community has the good, the bad and the rotten -- unfortunately, the reputations of SEO professionals are being sullied by the same kind of pond scum who fouled the waters of legitimate e-mail marketing, i.e. the spammers.

THespos has a good point about Google tweaking its algorithms ... there must be a way for the search engines to stop rewarding these abusers!

[Daniel Riveong]

As Google themselves say, the ultimate way to achieve good visibility (rankings) on Google Search is by being relevant to users: make content people want to look at and link to.

As long as SEO create relevant and authentic content that people like and want to link to - SEO will actually benefit Communities.

As far as your spam concerns, Social Media marketers and PR folks have been just as guilty of starting fake blogs, gaming YouTube videos to increase brand visibility, traffic and awareness. Let's not merely look at SEO folks as being Social Media Spammers.

Indeed, Google has twice written on the subject of using links for SEO, including the following from Google Webmaster Blog from 2006:
"Discounting non-earned links by search engines opened a new and wide field of tactics to build link-based popularity: Classically this involves optimizing your content so that thematically-related or trusted websites link to you by choice. A more recent method is link baiting, which typically takes advantage of Web 2.0 social content websites. One example of this new way of generating links is to submit a handcrafted article to a service such as http://digg.com."

In my experience, you can create all this content, submit to YouTube, Digg etc - but if the Community does not like it, it will not work. That is why even though the SEO articles talks about tactics, relevancy is the key. But if you have the right content, why not make sure people talk about, link to it and even criticize it?

Based on my experience of being in SEO for over 8 years and Social Media (We called it WoM then) for over 5, I think there are many mis-conceptions on SEO in your post.

I've listed 7 points, I'd contend with on your view of SEO and Social Media:
1. We Marketers, Advertisers and PR People don’t make Social Media…
2.…But we can help encourage Social Media to happen easier.
3. Social Media and ROI: What do you tell the COO & CEO?
4. Like Google Says: “The best way to create good links is to have good content”
5. Spam: Just from SEO people?
6. The SEO Community has been in Social Media as long as PR has, even Google encourages linkbait and writes on being Diggable
7. Social Media as SEO: Social Media is the Ultimate Search Engine Algorithm

See the whole thing at Defending SEO: Why SEO loves Social Media & Linkbait

If you're ever in San Francisco, please look me up at e-Storm International...maybe we can hold a point/counter-point forum? :)

[Ned]

In the end, this increases the value of content. As a writer I say, "It's about time."

[Chris Kieff]

Steve,

As an SEO who has spent his time working closely with may PR people. I think the PR industry is just as dirty as the SEO industry. For every 8 of us good ones in both PR and SEO there are 2 lousy ones who give us all a bad name.

The evidence of PR's bad reputation is clear in it's primary constituency, the Media. Media people treat PR like pariah to be avoided and shunned. There are reasons for this, some earned and some not earned. Remember Wired Editor's outing of PR Spam? http://www.psfk.com/2007/10/wired-editor-outs-lazy-pr-flacks.html

We both need to try to clean up our industries. Crying over it without offering any solutions is pointless. Try this as one solution for SEO Spam: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

Thanks,
Chris Kieff

[paisley]

a. I find this a very irresponsible post. (a little knowledge is dangerous, a little knowledge and a high pulpit is frighteningly irresponsible.)

b. I'm thinking someone is linkbaiting as opposed to speaking intelligently about a subject that they just showed they know little about... (i could be wrong.. maybe?)

c. Thinking what is normally a blog with an intelligent point of view (MicroPersuasion) may have overstepped it's sphere of knowledge. (SEO instead of PR)

E. OUR SANDBOX???? me thinks based on some of the comments above, (Greywolf, Aaron Wall) "we" don't want you in "our" sandbox. However we could attempt to pee pee in yours.. (see below)

F. Googlebomb - Google - "bogus wal-mart blog" I'm sure plenty of SEOs could make that post come up first for "edleman pr, edleman, steve rubel, edelman public relations, unethical PR, etc..".. right?
(I don't engage in this type of activity, but others who read this post will..)
(FYI:Edelman's name comes up on the first page for unethical PR already)

G. there are enough unethical people that game Digg, myspace, splogs, etc.. I think you (oh, he of bogus wal mart blog fame), speaking about unethical people and SEO makes perfect sense..
or does it?

[TVSPY]

Well I think it's always been an integral part of all social sites to filter and moderate out spam. Spammers will of course find a way to get in and benignly attempt to cram their content into the faces of the users, but it's very detectable - especially since the sites they promote or submit are clear spam type sites with nothing more then a sales pitch and may be a few articles used as linkbait.

[matt]

you're just realizing this now? you're about 2 years late

[Slowpoke McDouchbag]

yea... ummm, you know? its like... i dunno, shutup or something. kthxbye

SPMDB

[Another SEO]

I think you have it all wrong really. What you are referring to is SPAM not SEO. Didn't anyone ever tell you not to stereotype people or groups? This is like saying all black people are criminals.

Here's a simple SEO solution for you from a veteran SEO to the Bloggers, place this in the meta tags for you blog posts . Essentially what this says to the search engines is to index this page, but do not follow or count the links. This will eliminate any SPAMMER that is trying to game your link juice.

[Another SEO]

Meta tag didn't copy over meta name="robots" content="index,nofollow". Just put brackets around that.

You guys/gals are welcome. Just quit bad mouthing SEO's.

[Daniel Riveong]

Steve,

Looks like Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) picks up on the SEO & Social Media debate, quoting you and I:
http://www.womma.org/blog/2008/02/seos-impact-on-social-media/

Since our respective employers, Edelman and e-Storm are both members of WOMMA, should we do a WOMMA-hosted online debate?

Just a thought...

;)

[Free Wallpaper]

Social media is being influenced I believe as well. More and more companies are beginning to create profiles and so fourth for the sole purpose of having more sites link to them.EEK!

[Eric Cumberworth]

You, sir, are a hater. I would add witty support but in this case I don't even feel it's necessary.

[Former Employee of an SEO Company]

I used to work for one of these SEO/SEM companies; it was a paycheck, and I'm still trying to wash the dirty feeling off. Forgive me. Watching management abuse social media was like watching vultures fight over a carcass. This particular company attempted to use Digg, et. al., to bring customers to their affiliate marketing sites. It was constant SEO madness with statistical analysis of traffic, fake blogs, fake content, the hiring of companies of writers to generate additional fake content via fake "blogger" and "commenter" personalities (ever heard of Army of Moms? I assure you their "true story" isn't true), and more. It was disgusting to watch, and the sheer amount of money they were making was alarming.

The general attitude of the SEO crowd I interacted with can be summed up thusly: "People owe us. Who cares what the user wants? We didn't start it; this is just the way the Internet is, and it's only going to get worse. If we can get old people and women who are stupid enough to click on our ads to visit our sites, we've succeeded." That last line is almost a direct quote from the owner of the company.

You'll find that they'll often blame tangentially related industries (PR, marketing, search engines, etc.) for the nature of their work, and they could care less about "community rules." They tend to be slippery, greasy types that can talk their way out of anything. You'll see some of that represented in your comments here already. They almost seem to harbor resentment toward the Internet and its users. Scary stuff. Show up at one of the Commission Junction University conferences, and I guarantee you'll meet some of the worst parts of humanity.

Luckily, some of these social sites--Digg in particular--have vicious users who will quickly eliminate spam posts and junk submissions. That we--as users--have to deal with it at all is unacceptable, though. The fact that Wordpress is very SEO-friendly right out of the box isn't going to change; it's up to the users to act responsibly, which I'm afraid isn't going to happen. You--and many of your readers--have only seen the tip of the SEO/SEM iceberg. The 70% under the surface--that is, the callous disregard for people and the irrational pursuit of wealth--is the part you should be worried about.

[Mike Munz of Higher Images]

Interesting POV. I find myself playing for both teams. I mean isnt social media supposed to prevoke & envoke a response? Actually this post is very indicative of the gen X mindset,"Me,Me,Me". Let me clarify,we are so worried about our "pseudo rights" of social media, we missed the oppurtunity for innovation. We are so caught up in what "we" want social media to be, that "we" aren't thinking of ways for it to be better for the future. What if thru some social media channel there is an attempt to "market", and that attempt leads to some sort of breakthrough for the future of all social media. (what if?)

Like everything else online this will be exploited no matter how many articles like this one appear. So, instead of joining the masses and complaining about the infingments, make some changes, realize the potential, and let innnovation happen. I do agree that this was not the intent for this medium, but will it hurt or help the future of social media? If we all keep walking on eggshells wondering if this will offend anyone or alter the outcome, than we are doomed to be limited by that mindset. "Behind every innovation is someone who dared to try!"

P.s. I write alot about marketing and want to share my ideas at:
http://www.higherimagesblog.com

[Jim Spencer]

Steve,

1) Hit Tail. Is that run by a PR Agency? Are they offering SEO services? Yes.Yes.

2) I smell the attack hook burning up the Internet fiber.

3) Do you feel SEO bloggers are taking over your blog today?

4) Has your readership diversity and volume increased today?

5) Ask an SEO if Digg and Stumble brings conversations or just expensive traffic. "Nothing more" than traffic is often closer to the truth.

6) Does SEO include anything more than "baiting social media"? That's it, heh? Wrong.

7) Don't PR firms strategize on how to generate WOM for their high paying clients?

8) When did you and Jason C last have drinks together?

More research and preparation, more specificity and less of a broad attack would be more welcome.

On the solution side, the SE's will continue to evolve to meet their own needs. This is not a permanent problem for social media, just as the link farm and link exchanges were not permanently effective.

The best solution is to generate the attention, authority and trust that you / your clients need without being so heavily dependent on the search engines (one search engine). That takes real work.

Gaiming just won’t cut it for that.

[Nathan Dailo]

As one who is in the SEO field, I have seem numerous times, the lengths people go through for optimisation. Lengths of which are totally unecessary! If you know what your doing, illegal tactics can be totally unavoided, especially when your used to the process already.

[Shawn]

My stuff is ALWAYS great content. Everyone else's content is spam. Or so I feel. Zen SEO is so freeing.

[steve tilly]

So you think this is just your sandbox? Sadly it's not. The internet like any good democracy is ruled by the people, the people that Manipulate it, the same is and always has/will been true. No madder what your impaired incompetent view of media is. If you want to fuck the system you have start before the SEO factor, don't you understand that idiots capitalize on anything that makes a buck is inevitable. Don't waste your critical thinking skills, or was this blog post just made to rank high on a current hot topic?