Between 1998 and 2003, searching for something on Google was magical.
I remember inputting a vague notion like "oil mother's milk," and being directed to an interview with Thomas Gold, an astrophysicist who postulated that hydrocarbon deposits refilled themselves because of geological pressure.
Today, if one is looking for something that is technical, specific, academic or generally non-commercial, good luck. The world's best information retrieval system has devolved into something reminiscent of 2006-era Digg: A popularity index that's controlled by a small number of commercially motivated players. Enter “SEO.”
Technical search-engine optimization specialists get a pass: They generally make the web faster, safer and more accessible. "Black hat" SEOs are obvious villains. They boost their own web rankings by creating false personas or breaking the law (e.g. hacking into a website to add links back to their own). But, black hats are the petty criminals of the SEO world. It's the "white hat" SEOs, the supposed good guys*, who are the wolves in sheep's clothing. Here are some of their tactics:
Rewriting history
If you've ever re-read an article and sworn that the headline, hyperlinks and headings were modified, you're not imagining it. SEO specialists "optimize" old articles to make them more marketable (and to drive visitors into newer, more commercial content). When I look back at articles that I wrote a decade ago, they've been updated with text that I didn't write, carrying meanings that I didn't mean.
Erasing the past
"Content pruning" is an effective SEO tactic on large, established websites. Rather that archiving old content with historical significance, many websites will delete it from their servers and return a 410 status code. Gone. The goal is to optimize "crawl budget," keeping Google focused on what is popular now. The result is a web without institutional memory or accountability.
Directing the narrative
Show me a modern newsroom and I'll show you a content strategist whom writers are expected to consult. (I should know, I used to be one.) But, when journalists feel pressured to write about topics they are not comfortable with, or, when they are compelled to phrase things in a specific way, "SEO best practices" start to look like propaganda. This is the cable news effect, where a behind-the-scenes strategist is editing the script and pushing every trend as "Breaking News!"
Providing the illusion of choice
A handful of publishing companies own hundreds of media websites that collectively receive billions of search engine visits each year. E.g. Search for "best smartphone" and you may see results from websites like TechRadar, Android Central, T3, Tom's Guide, Anandtech, iMore, Louder, Creative Bloq, Digital Camera World or Top Ten Reviews. It doesn't matter which site you vote for with your click, the ballot is stacked: All of those websites are owned by a single company (my former employer).
Hoarding wealth
Links are the currency of the web. Without them, search engines couldn't judge the relative worth of one page versus another. Unfortunately, many large websites hoard their link equity by refusing to link to external websites, or, by using a rel="nofollow" attribute on every external link (i.e. telling search engines to ignore those links). This makes the entire web poorer as a result.
###
SEO is a zero-sum game that has a loser for every winner. But, we all lose when SEO promotes gaslighting, link rot, conformity, monopoly and subversion. I remember when it was easy to find logic, facts, and reason on the web. Then, we optimized it.
*I’m describing myself. I was an SEO executive at one of the largest online publishing companies, and while I hold my former co-workers in the highest personal and professional esteem, I left my job because I didn’t feel comfortable with the direction that online media was taking.
My aim has always been to leave the web a better place than I found it, but I found myself sacrificing my ideals to embrace whatever “best practice” was dictated by business needs.
As a final admission, I originally published this article anonymously in April 2020 on another website that I can no longer afford to host. I redirected it here and updated it with minor edits and this postscript.