Yes, a bad SEO got busted. No, that is not an intelligent argument for SEO standards.
Kevin at Search Engine Watch immediately pounced on the ruling against Internet Advancement as an argument for SEO standards.
The fact that there are fraudsters and con artists out there doesn’t argue for SEO standards. It argues for enforcement of the law. And that’s what happened here.
If you want to argue for SEO standards, you need to tell me:
- Who will create them, and why I should trust them;
- How these standards will be fairly and consistently enforced;
- Why I, after years of working my tail off as an ethical internet marketer and SEO pro, should have to now follow someone else’s standards;
- Why the hell I should believe that the existence of standards would’ve prevented Internet Advancement from ripping people off.
And that last one’s the real kicker. How would the existence of SEO standards keep Internet Advancement from screwing hundreds of clients?
Internet Advancement would’ve just walked around telling folks they’re ‘standards compliant’ or some such. They would have pursued naive customers who didn’t know much about SEO, and wouldn’t know much about standards. And those are most customers.
Standards require enforcement. Unless you have police or bouncers, enforcement requires voluntary compliance. Compliance requires some level of good behavior on the part of participants. What makes you think Internet Advancement or other crooks would comply?
So Kevin, nuthin but love for ya, but how exactly would you have used SEO standards to stop Internet Advancement?
I sit at my computer, gazing out at the squirrels as they raft gently down the Green River on small boats they’ve made from grass, waiting for your answer…