Who’s Really Unethical?

I agree with you about 90%. The title is just linkbait, although I do think some of it unethical. I am definitely NOT the morality police, and the whitehat camp that makes ethics a “unique selling point” makes me extremely nauseas. In fact, I’ve used many of those same arguments in defense of not trying to regulate SEO, and defending blog spammers etc.

A few points though -
1. I *do* think SABATOGE is pretty unethical. Googlebowling is most likely going to be flat out sabatoge. Same goes for hijacks, etc. It certain spaces, it may become accepted practice because of the money involved, the same way that guys gettin’ wacked is accepted practice in the mob. I really don’t like ethics debates anyways (though now I do remember they are good for controversy). I think I was somehow hypnotized into doing an ethics based post.

2. >You’re not ever gonna stop ALL the evil folks
This was not intended to judge ALL SEO folks in these industries by any means. Only to say that there is much more “high risk” activity goin’ on there. I was “speaking for google” which may or may not be correct…but that is certainly not to say that I always agree with them. I think there *is* some rather unsavory techniques being used in a lot of those spaces, and I have a pretty high thresh hold. Blog spam doesn’t bother me, and I do think the problems that these exploits CAN happend lies at fault with G. Despite HATING ethics debates, I will make the point that just because a car door is open it doesn’t mean it’s right to swipe the $20 on their dashboard.

3. >Give me your average Black Hat when it comes to honor over your average self professed “ethical SEO” any day of the week.
I agree with you. Most blackhats are much more techically proficient. There are lots of SEO’s that there is no WAY that I’d let them touch my site, and a handful of blackhats, that I’d probably hand over my most precious sites to promote.

Anyhow, I’ve certainly done my fair share of google bashing, and I’ve certainly held up for blackhats (at the very least in my own mind). I think blackhats are often the most creative SEO, and I certainly try to learn from them (this post included). This being said, I don’t know how you can justify outright sabotage. Trying to beat someone with darker tactics is one thing. Trying to destroy them completely is quite another. Perhaps I have some strange moral values, but it is along the same lines of why I won’t ever fill out a spam report. It’s the engines job to fix problems, but you still have to draw the line somewhere in the sand I think.

You make a salient point Dave. You’re metaphor isn’t perfect but it’s darn close.

Did the car have defective breaks that caused the accident? Or was this drunk driver stopped at a red light when he was rear-ended by Larry Page?

I think I would prefer the metaphor of the spitball in baseball, holding in American Football or perhaps even “running out the clock.”

Consider this: Until enough “unethical” people made the 302 a real issue by using it “maliciously” (including hijacking Google’s actual adsense page), the problem of webmasters getting screwed over by Google’s system was not (is still not being?) addressed.

Would you consider it just as unethical to Google bomb or use other positive manipulation to own the top 10 sites or 20 sites on Google for a particular SERP? I know people that do this.

Does the fact that a 302 hijack or Googlebowling is an active “negative” to a competitor make it more unethical than using overtly positive tactics that still have the net effect of destroying traffic levels for your competitors (by bringing all the traffic to your sites)? How about using “link bait” or just good white hat SEO? Is that unethical as well? You are still destroying your competitors.

The search business is nearly a zero sum game. Almost regardless of what we do, there will be only X number of searches for Viagra next month. You and I are going to divvy up those searches. Google makes the rules and we play by them. The winners get hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. The losers get day jobs.

I am open to having my mind changed on this point: If the intent of both actions is to win at the expense of your competitors, then these actions are ethically equivalent.