Search engine optimization has long been troubled by arguments over ethics. Over the past few years the subject of reputation management has further complicated the search ethics landscape. There are no generally accepted standards or processes, although several attempts have been made to establish ethical standards for search optimization.

In terms of technique, search reputation management borrows considerably from search optimization but there are significant distinctions between these two types of services. Search engine optimization is usually focused on improving one particular site’s visibility for one or more targeted query expressions. Search reputation management is usually concerned more with a small number of queries but emphasizes the promotion of multiple Web sites.

What is right, what is wrong? What is fair? Many people laughed when black hat SEO Greg Boser shared his definition for Web spam in search engine results: “Sites positioned above me.” That is often how Webmasters react to seeing other sites outrank their own. Those sites must have done something unethical to achieve such high rankings, in which case, why shouldn’t everyone pursue similar strategies?

Search optimization ethics are confused, however, for a number of reasons. You really need to understand search reputation management ethics first before developing acceptable standards. Some years ago, when the search optimization field first began openly working to develop ethical standards, one of the foremost advocates of the movement failed to disclose his financial connections with search engines. I openly challenged the credibility of the organization he was helping to organize because I had first-hand knowledge of just how close his relationship to search services really was.

In search optimization there is a need to establish a balance between the needs of the Web site operators and the needs of the search services. However, on more than one occasion people within the search optimization community have promoted search service standards as the best ethical practices of the communities. In effect, these advocates have taken the position that search engines and directories should be the final arbiters of what is acceptable Web content.

Search services are business entities monetizing the organization and presentation of data about other people’s Web content. They embrace a symbiotic relationship with the Web community and that relationship must acknowledge that not all content is organized according to their wishes. In the most equal discussion of search optimization ethics, the search engines have a right to decide what they will index but the Webmasters have the right to decide what they will present on their Web sites.

Google has been criticized by members of the SEO community for employing so-called bullying tactics to coerce Web sites into organizing their content according to Google’s demands. For example, the popular SEOmoz Web site disclosed that Google employees had approached the site’s owner, Rand Fishkin, at a conference. He was told to either implement the controversial ‘rel=nofollow’ on his member profile links or face a penalty: his outbound links would no longer be able to pass value in Google’s index.

The stigma of being penalized by Google for violating its guidelines is so traumatizing that when Google publicly penalized a major corporation for violating its guidelines, the corporation quickly moved to change its content and ask for reinclusion.

The imbalance of power between Google and Web site operators exists because Web site operators feel proprietarily engaged with Google. They look to Google for more traffic than to other sources, and thus Google assumes a dominant role in its symbiosis with those Web site operators. In reality, Web site operators enter into the symbiotic relationship with search technology by their own choices despite the fact that other means of building traffic are available.

In search reputation there is no symbiosis. Your reputation in the online world is not dependent upon what you do with your Web site; nor is it even governed by search service guidelines. Neither Google nor any of its major competitors such as Yahoo!, Microsoft’s Live, or Ask require that Web content be either truthful or accurate. No diligence is expected of Web site operators in creating the content that search services seek to monetize.

The World Wide Web is in effect a liars’ paradise for while there may indeed be laws against libel there is no mechanism for enforcing the law. The U.S. Congress gave Internet Service Providers immunity from third-party communication in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Although the CDA’s primary restriction concerning obscenity was invalidated by a court ruling, the protection for ISPs remains in place. You have no right or recourse to demand that an ISP remove objectionable content (even if the ISP’s terms of service forbid the display of libelous content) because Internet Service Providers convinced the U.S. government that they operate just like telephone companies, completely unaware of what their users are doing with their services.

Never mind the fact that many of those same ISPs are selling user click-data to Internet market survey companies such as Compete and Hitwise. These transactions are similar to telephone companies selling your telephone records to marketing companies (they don’t).

Many ISPs also feature “hot Web sites” from among their customers’ inventories to help promote client Web content. In doing these things, the Internet Service Provider community demonstrates a clear and palpable knowledge of user activity, far beyond the limited interaction they assured Congress was the boundary of their knowledge.

In an environment where anyone can lie, even get a law passed to protect them from the consequences of lying, search reputation management becomes more critical to people and organizations who are the victims of poison pen campaigns. Of course, some individuals and organizations simply reap the consequences of risks they have taken in the past where misjudgments have resulted in “black marks” on their public records.

Corporations struggling with labor issues, executive and board room conflicts and issues, product brand crises, and other news-attracting events ultimately find themselves profiled in the eternal Hall of Flame. It only takes one dedicated individual or organization to paint the Internet red. All the good will in the world is relatively ineffectual because most people simply take no action.

There is no communal redressing of unfair injuries. People will allow the hostile entities to denigrate and degrade a third party’s reputation, caring nothing for the facts, because they have no personal stake in the outcome of such a conflict. The sad truth of our global community is that there is no one to speak for us even before they start taking people away. Another apt expression also comes to mind: “The truth is always the first victim in any conflict.”

Search reputation management is, unfortunately, built upon the success of pre-emptive conflict. That is, one side or the other takes the extraordinary step to manipulate Web content so as to present only one side of a story. The other side, being caught unawares, must face a deficit of public trust and perception that the technology only serves to perpetuate. Those Web sites that seize the top positions in search results tend to retain those positions through the growth of inbound linkage.

Where are the ethics in the infinite wars of words being conducted on the Internet? Internet service providers and search engines abstain from enforcing guarantees of quality they themselves promote or imply through their terms of service and Webmaster guidelines. Ethical organizations may arise from time to time but they are generally greeted with suspicion and history doesn’t help their cause. So there are no Web police and people with good causes to advocate find themselves without any clear boundaries or guidelines on what is or should be acceptable.

Any hostile point of view is clearly unacceptable to the target of the hostility.

In choosing to conduct a search reputation management campaign, one must accept some risks that the campaign itself may be deemed an opportunity for additional hostile activity. But friends and allies can be won in the war of words if the moral high ground is quickly seized by the victim of hostile intent. The more emotionally involved and contrived a poison pen campaign becomes, the more transparent the motives of the poison pen writer become to a significant portion of the Internet audience. That audience will NOT TAKE ACTION, but it will observe and remember.

One of your prerogatives is always to present your side of an issue, but the worst mistake you can make is to try to do so in any misleading capacity. Deception comes in many forms, and the most common form of deception is the intentional error of omission. It’s easier for a hostile entity to point out your flaws if you pretend something never happened when you present your side of an issue rather than merely explain the facts as best you can.

An ethical search reputation strategy must anticipate the eventual consequences of being caught in a lie or deception. That is, the best way to manage search reputation is not to pretend to be a disinterested third party who advocates the “right” side. Rather, make your voice known openly and clearly. Do your best to ensure that you don’t give an obvious impression of trying to mislead people by not disclosing all the relevant information.

In working with a dispassionate third-party advocate, your search reputation objective should not be to “delete all the bad stuff” but to ensure that accurate, honest information is easily available to people who are searching for information about you. If they know there is bad stuff they will find it regardless of what you do.

Another prerogative, and one that may be more effective in a far-reaching spectrum of online reputation situations, is simply to focus on what you are proud of. Tell people about what you do, who you are, and where you want to help them. You don’t have to do this just through your own Web site. You can present your message through a variety of media, and many corporations do work with public relations firms to build a positive image in the news.

Search reputation management is not a public relations campaign, however. You cannot pick up the telephone and call someone in the hope of getting front page coverage. Sending out a press release may have all the effect of dumping sand in a desert. Search reputation management requires a longer view, a more methodical approach.

You have to define the scope of the visibility you want to influence. You cannot have it all. The hostile voices will not be silenced. Your clear objective should be to build a solid online presence that speaks clearly, eloquently, and succinctly. But what can do is work to ensure that your name space is not polluted by obviously hostile and contrived verbal abuse. The best approach is to give disinterested third parties a reason to become interested in you: show people what you are doing to help other people.

Seek recognition, encourage it, and promote that recognition through the resources you bring to the Web. Provide the balance your reputation needs by constantly improving your reputation. For many people and organizations that amounts to little more than slightly elevating their public activities. On the Internet, a firestorm of protest and criticism may sometimes be quelled by a constant and steady flow of reliable, accurate information about other issues from a variety of sources.

This is where an ethical approach to search reputation management is so vital. Do nothing that justifiably invites criticism or rebuke. Promote what you do honestly, fairly, accurately. Respect the balance between the needs of Web content providers and the needs of search providers. Understand that Web content is not event-oriented. It doesn’t appear one day and vanish the next like a news story. Web content is a long-term investment in presentation. Manage your Web content like it will be here forever. Build your online reputation upon an immutable foundation of content that exudes integrity and accuracy.

By Michael Martinez