Let me begin by explaining that there are two internets: these are the internet that you and I see when we browse websites and the internet that search engine spiders see when they scan websites. In an ideal world, these two internets would be one and the same, but spiders lack the ability to use forms, process JavaScript, read images and scan Flash files. Additionally, spiders look for many bits of information that are embedded within a page but are not readable by the average user. Because of these idiosyncrasies, a website that wants to use modern user interface tools like AJAX or Flash has to compensate for their lack of spider readability by building hidden mechanisms to help the spiders along. In the old days, a website was laid out in a very straightforward series of pages and links, but now we are in the age of "Web 2.0" (an often misused term, including in this article) where sites are more dynamic, personal, interactive and flashy. While it all makes for a more interesting end user experience, web developers are finding themselves working double time to reconcile their tricked-out user interface with the banal scanning methods of search engines.
SEO can be thought of as a set of standards for content, structure and interrelations, but that drives the question: What do arbitrary (different for every search engine) standards have to do with a website's search ranking? Why must a website adjust its content and structure for the specific purpose of a computer program to rank it for human relevance? This then breeds an endless hypothetical argument: Should websites optimize themselves or should search engines develop more intelligent spiders? There is a neutral third option wherein both ends agree to universal standards, but as any HTML/CSS developer can tell you; standards are daisies stuffed down gun barrels in the war for market share. What usually ends up winning this argument is the free market. A huge industry has popped up based around bridging the lack of efficiency of both the search engines and the websites: the SEO industry.
This brings me back to why SEO is bullshit and how a Rube Goldberg machine is the perfect parallel for it. There are parts of SEO standard practice that make subtle changes to improve the user experience for the more involved internet users (friendly URLs, some forms of content organization) however there are other methods within the SEO repertoire that baffle me and can actually cause confusion among users. One example of this is the idea that it is better to have more pages than less. What ends up happening is that sections that can easily be handled by one single page (perhaps a store listing of 8 brick & mortar locations, or a top-10 list) are split into multiple pages for each entry. This division is ONLY helpful if you find the page through a search engine because you were looking for a specific thing; however as a user simply browsing the site, this adds nothing but unnecessary clicks and extra page loading. Basic SEO like this essentially places more value on search traffic than usability, which is a mistake for a fledgling website fighting to make an impression on skeptical users.
It is possible to make your pages fun and easy to use while also building a wheelchair ramp for the spiders. Just like having stairs as well, it is twice the work necessary to accomplish the same thing. (A good study on this is endless.com, if you want to bother getting into the source to understand how it works.) It involves building a sleek Flash or AJAX user interface that is essentially invisible to search engines, and (in visual terms) placing it on top of (effectively covering from a user's view) a standard link-based navigation structure. I had been searching for a good use for the term "Kafkaesque" and I think I just found it. SEO has become more than just "stuff you gotta do because it's good." It is now also stuff you have to do because nothing works the way it should.
To compound all of this, SEO isn't even an exact science. As noted, every search engine has its own rules for ranking websites. Not only that, but those rules change constantly. We'd like to think that the rules we are optimizing for are based on sound decisions for content organization but as with any middle-man industry (like real estate and law) SEO evolves with the times. Google engineers have informed that they make changes to their algorithm several times a day. Most changes are minuscule, in place to prevent scamming and manipulation, but some can be rather large and can seriously affect how a page is ranked. The kicker is that many changes of this sort are not even publicized; it is up to the industry to react to perceived adjustments in ranking. We're trying to hit a moving target, so sometimes things have to be done to cover as many bases as possible.
And this is where the inane content requirements come into play. In my conversation with the director of marketing, I was informed that on an e-commerce website, a product listing needed FIVE separate and unique descriptions, each placed in specific parts of its page architecture for optimal ranking recognition. Imagine having to create copy for a catalog of over 200 products. Additionally, any product-related image needed a descriptive file name, alt text, a title and a separate text file for the "longdesc" attribute. Wow. For a moment I was ashamed that I had forgotten there even was a "longdesc" attribute. In the same vein, have you ever bothered to read an "optimized" paragraph of search-engine-friendly text? Here is an example:
_____ Shoes celebrates over 60 years as one of the nations leading independent retailers of women’s dress shoes, designer shoes and casual shoes. We offer an outstanding selection of designer footwear, legendary customer service and over sixty years of service and reliability. ______ Shoes features famous designer collections from Stuart Weitzman, Donald J. Pliner Shoes, Marc by Marc Jacobs, Tory Burch, KORS by Michael Kors, Kate Spade Shoes, Matt Bernson Sandals, Frye Boots, Jack Rogers, Bernardo Shoes, Juicy Couture Boots, Theory Shoes, Fiorentini and Baker boots, French Soles, Pedro Garcia Shoes, daniblack shoes, Chloé, Thierry Rabotin, Oh Deer, Muks, MICHAEL Michael Kors, Cynthia Vincent Shoes, Kork Ease Sandals, Hunter Rain Boots, Chie Mihara Shoes and Cole Haan to youthful designer collections from Steve Madden Boots, Ed Hardy Boots, Sam Edelman Shoes, Minnetonka Boots, Jeffrey Campbell Shoes, Dolce Vita Shoes, Blowfish Shoes, Converse Shoes, Havaianas Shoes and Ugg Australia. We strive to offer the finest selection of dress shoes, boots, rain boots, sandals, evening shoes, bridal shoes and more, to women of all ages and tastes.
If while reading this you found yourself thumbing the hammer on your emergency suicide pistol, I totally understand. This block of text was never meant for YOU to read. Despite its location as the centerpiece for an e-commerce homepage, the only function it serves is to herd the spiders into specific areas of the catalog for prioritization. My point is that SEO involves redundant, pedantic practices that greatly increase development, maintenance and setup costs while providing little to no sense for the actual users who reach the site. I've got a theory that these requirements only exist to secure someone a contract in the first place.
I also want to touch on link buying very briefly. Basically, search engines rank sites based on the other sites that link to them. The higher the ranking of the sites that link to you, the higher your own ranking grows. If you're in a soft market, you don't even need a reputation. There are companies out there that provide a service that will create hundreds of "valid and substantiated" links to your website from others, for a fee. Genuine links are probably the most effective form of SEO, so it helps to know that this standard of "relevancy" can simply be purchased with a large enough check.
There are other parts of SEO that I am less skeptical about. These are the strategic parts that involve figuring out what key words to target in order to compete in your market. This is when SEO starts to sound like a valid business strategy. The problem is taking that analysis and applying it unfettered is like hiring a team of chemists to theorize the perfect chili recipe. No soul. Have you heard of the long tail? Your SEO analyst becomes your real-estate agent because all the best land is taken and you have to find a decent plot to call your own. So, instead of cracking the market for "butt plugs" like you thought you'd be doing, you'll be lucky if you can rank for "womens vibrating rubber anal plug cleveland." You may even have to go so far as to rename your site with 3 or 4 "targeted" keywords. DiscountMonogrammedRubberCondoms.com anyone?
All that there is to say is that those #1 search results that you see every time you punch in a search query aren't always the most relevant sites to you. They're mostly just the sites that have spent enough money or are simply designed like a weed. How many times have you searched for the answer to a question, only to find a page asking for your paid membership to see the solution?
Enough ranting. Let's look at our reality. When you're a small company, you need search-based traffic because you sure don't have brand recognition. That means you have to play the game. You have to ride the long tail like the sleazy sugar daddy that it is. You have to mangle your page copy to make it seem like you hired Johnny 5 as your intern. You have to do all of this work because the system is broken and the profiteers are riding the waves of your ignorance all the way to the bank. (The bank... get it?) There's not much we can do except hope that the system changes and the search engines become a bit more human. For now, we are accommodating a bullshit system with piles of even more bullshit, and even additional bullshit as a buffer for future unforeseen bullshittery.