For reasons best known to themselves, they simply do the search engines' wishes. There are some search engine optimization methods that the engines don't want to be used; e.g. hidden text, cloaking, doorway pages, etc. Even though the engines care nothing for any website or for any search engine optimizer, these people do the engines' bidding - and they preach it to anyone who will listen. Some of them probably adopted the attitude from others who frequent the smaller forums and, without thinking it through for themselves, they presumably accept that it's the only right way of doing things.

Most of these people won't discuss or debate any of the so-called unethical methods; they simply state that they are unethical, and that's that. When the occassional discussion does get started, they soon find that they have no answers to the opposing points, and they usually either disappear (stop posting) or resort to insults. Their reluctance to discuss the issues is understandable, because they don't have any rational or common sense arguments in their favour, except that it's against the engines' wishes. It's ok for them to follow the engines' wishes but it doesn't explain why they brand some things as 'unethical'. Unethical = wrong in a moral sense.

I can't say that their idea of search engine optimization is wrong. If it suits them, that's fine. What I can say is wrong is the way they openly declare that certain search engine optimization methods, of which they disapprove, are unethical. To be unethical is to be immoral, or to be wrong in a moral sense. Even though they cannot explain what is morally wrong with any of the 'unethical' methods, they still make the claims, and they do their best to tarnish people who use them by declaring them to be unethical. That's unethical!

I call this an "eye-opening" example (of the failure of 'ethical' seo) because of who it is that failed. I'm not going to divulge the person's name, so I will refer to him/her as male, which may or may not indicate the person's actual gender.

He is one of the most prominent of the self-styled 'ethical' SEOs, if not the most prominent. His prominence is due to several things:- (1) he is frequently paid to speak as a search engine optimization expert at seo conferences, (2) he is very active and visible in more than one SEO forum, (3) he produces a regular SEO newsletter which is read by thousands of people.

In each of those platforms he advises the same thing over and over again; i.e. there is really no need to use 'unethical' methods; do it the way that I do it (ethical seo) and the high rankings will follow. Also in those platforms, he is known to use such insulting words as "scummy" and "scumbucket" to describe what he thinks of as 'unethical' SEOs and methods. This person is a shining beacon for the self-styled 'ethical' SEOs, and his advice is continually listened to, and swallowed, by many thousands of people. So it was a great pleasure to me when I received one particular email from him.

In the email, he wrote, "I have one client right now who wants some highly competitive words, which when I took the job, I didn't realize were quite so competitive." and "I can't stand failing with this site, but as it stands now, I've done everything I can do for it." His problem was that his efforts had failed. His 'ethical' seo didn't work - hence the email to me. He was looking for other methods that he might use and, to be fair, he was only looking for methods that would stay within the search engines' guidelines.

The point is that so-called "ethical" search engine optimization can't compete. It only works when there is little or no competition.

My guess is that the search terms that he failed with can't have been all that competitive if a person with his experience didn't realise how competitive they were from the start. When pushed, he has been known to admit that the "ethical" seo methods can't compete when the search terms are competitive, and yet he continues to advise people that there is no need to use 'unethical' methods, etc. in the forums, in his newsletter, and when he speaks at conferences. I've never seen him voluntarily add the proviso that what he says works if the search terms are not very competitive. Instead he continues to advise people to do it his way and the rankings will follow. In my view, he intentionally misleads people - either that or he is so dumb that he hasn't learned from his own failures.