The Return of Design site (which is run by the folks from Forty Media, who'd prefer to be linked to with the anchor text "phoenix web design") have an interesting post about what they consider ethical and unethical in the SEO business. There's a few inherent problems that underscore the massive distrust and general ignorance that enshrouds our industry. Excerpts include:

• Search engine optimization: Ensuring that your code and content is appropriately organized and easy for search engines to interpret accurately.
• Search engine exaggeration: Reinforcing your desired keywords through frequent repetition, hidden keywords, etc.
• Search engine deception: Creating content, pages, etc., that aren’t intended for human consumption, but are instead designed only to pull in search engine traffic.

Obviously, inaccuracies prevail in these characterizations - all three are largely relics of a bygone era as search engines have evolved and those conducting optimization have as well. But, it's not only the antiquated viewpoints that have me concerned. This in particular is fairly nonsensical:

(in reference to Search Engine Exaggeration)... This is where things start to get a bit shady. Once you realize how search engines work, there’s a great temptation to give them what they want by pumping up the keywords in your text, adding hidden keywords on your pages, etc.

While I have no doubt that there are folks who consider this an SEO "tactic", what it makes clear is how little the writers understand the industry, although I can't entirely blame them for this. Unless you keep up to date with SES/WMW conferences and read the popular SEO/M blogs, you would be largely in the dark. There is very little widespread media coverage (as I noted on Saturday).

What this really brings to the forefront for me is how we as an industry consider our own tactics, and how they would be seen by outsiders. One of the biggest parts of SEO, along with creating an ethical website, is generating traffic. To me, this practice is inextricably wrapped up in SEO, even though that acronym is a sore substitute for the actual work of finding great sites to get coverage, links and mentions from.

We're really TDOs - Traffic Driving Optimizers and if search engines aren't going to be good vehicles for getting visitors, SEOs/TDOs will pursue whatever avenues neccessary - blogs, tagging, press releases, directory listings (the ones that get real traffic), industry sites, online media outlets, etc. Through these highly varied outlets, we eventually end up attracting the search engines as well, but in many cases, particularly with the advent of Google's sandbox, SE traffic is second to type-ins and referrals during the often lengthy start of a campaign.

Across the 5 major e-commerce sites we (SEOmoz) operate(s), only 3 get more than 50% of their traffic from the 3 major search engines. And only 1 gets more than 75% from them. Is it unethical to promote? Is online marketing, with the inherent knowledge that it's also drawing in search engines against the morals of the web? Where does the line get drawn, and which arbitrary body gets to draw it?

These are questions for a higher authority than me, but they're questions our clients ask themselves, and thus, inextricably tied to our operations. If ethical SEO begins and ends at site design, usability, accessibility and content - why do so many great sites get passed over by the search engines? My personal view is that on the web, as in much of life, you make your own luck. If you're unwilling to promote, link build, and linkbait through content, you're relying on some very unstable forces to make your luck for you. There will always be sites and companies who can't get the exposure they deserve without paying for it - in my opinion, holding them back because it's unethical isn't just bizarre, it's hypocrisy.