I'm an exceptionally open-minded person and I like to look at everything in my professional life from as wide a vantage point as I can obtain. Recently, there have been several threads, posts & topics on the subject of ethics in the field of Search Engine Optimization (thousands to be exact).

I obviously cannot approach the subject from an impartial perspective, but I can say, honestly, that I have never attempted any "spam" or directly "unethical" tactics to rank my sites or my clients' sites. It's not that I despise or even begrudge these tactics, it's simply that I am not open at this time to the risk they bear. When operating sites for clients, it is nearly impossible (unless discussed beforehand) to practice "black-hat" tactics successfully over the long term.

The issue I take with labeling certain tactics or practices in SEO "unethical" is the dilution of the word "ethics" that goes along with it. Ethics is a set of practices which are inherently honest and carry with them positive intentions. Certain acts are therefore also inherently "unethical" - although these are few; more commonly, ethics are wrongly attributed to law, which creates a paradox, as law is not meant to spring from ethics, but rather from the safety, security and "pursuit of happiness" that all humankind should be entitled to. One man's ethics might therefore be against the law.

What is clearly neccessary in order to eliminate the contentious bickering about the "ethics" of SEO practices, is simply a set of guidelines produced by an independent authority like the W3C, the Web Standards Project, or similiar. Building links on a link farm may or may not be ethical, but it shouldn't be decided by either the search engines, nor one whose livlihood depends on them.

p.s. For those who may not be aware, the photo at right is of Joe McCarthy being advised by Roy Cohen during congressional hearings on communism in the State Dept. during the 1950's.