[Air-l] Protection against unethical practicesinsearchengineoptimization?

Wed Oct 6 17:07:36 PDT 2004

Hi,

Short intro as I've just been lurking here for a while. I'm just completing
my MA in research psychology, soon to be begin my doctorate in media
philosophy. Specifically, I will be considering the metaphysical and
aesthetic implications of technology, in the context of the evolution of
self. I also work in interface and information design, and in general find
the juxtapositions of psychology and technology and the meaning of meaning
to be fascinating.

Just going to jump on the bandwagon here.
Carmen, far from not being interesting, your post inspired me to consider
the theoretical implications of SEO from a more philosophical vantage point.
This debate is very reminiscent of some of the more metaphysical
considerations of information vs. entropy/noise that can be found hanging
around the edges of thinking of such pioneers as Shannon, Neuman and Bates.
Consider the general consensus of how _evil_ spammers are. In fact, they
have been the driving motivation for the entire field of SEO. It could be
argued that without them, we would find our information much more easily -
but anyone who was around in the early days of the internet, when the
directories were manual, spiders and bots were not generally positively
regarded and spamming was primitive will remember that even then, it was
damn hard to find "what you were looking for".

I find it fascinating that this has moved from the abstract of information
down to the practical realities of the corporate levels of society, and the
way that this tension is being used to determine meaning within the endless
sea of information. Spammers pushing us towards more meaningfully structured
content? That's some cool dialectics.

As I see it, entropy-like spammers and their ilk exploit - thereby eroding -
the structure of information: the criteria, algorithms and ranking systems.
This then brings in 'lords of order' (reference to lords of light; reference
to the gnostic dualism of knowledge/ and order/chaos) to more tightly
determine what is considered to be meaningful to the internet populace.
What's really interesting is that this has gone beyond quantitative rankings
(percentage of 'how' relevant has always been silly) to qualitative rankings
that consider user experience as well. True evolution.

Carmen, I'd be very interested to communicate with you on your work.
Also, if anyone happens to know of any work relevant to this direction, i'd
be more than happy to receive a pointer or two.

Thanks,

Heidi haLevi
(Israel)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carmen Mardiros [mailto:bluecorrnet at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:01 PM
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] Protection against unethical
> practicesinsearchengineoptimization?
>
>
> Ok then...
>
> elijah, I don't know why you're speaking to me as if I have the plague.
> You've put a 'spam' label around my neck without having a clue what I do.
>
> Search engine algorithms were built to return relevant information to a
> query. Recently the algos evolved and they now try to return websites that
> are good overall. By good websites I mean with relevant information to a
> query, easy to use, sites where users find what they are looking
> for, sites
> that other sites perceive to be valuable. These are all measured
> by various
> criteria.
>
> A lot of SEOs manipulate some of the criteria and buy links from other
> sites, stuff pages with dummy/useless text/keywords and generally clutter
> the web in the hope that they'll rank #1. The algos are far from
> perfect and
> many attain their goal. I despise these SEOs as much as you or
> anyone else.
>
> Some SEOs, however, understand that by making websites generally better
> these earn their high spots in search engines on merit. By "generally
> better" I mean things like:
>
> - including text that is of actual value to users and is not just filler
> text
> - using headings to break the page up and make it easier to scan/read
> - emphasising important points
> - omitting needless words and making every word tell (see
> Elements of Style
> 5th edition) which results in a naturally higher concentration of
> words that
> people actually search for (keywords)
> - writing informative titles/descriptions/headings that are appropriate to
> each page so that the user knows that what he's clicking on will
> take him to
> a page that gives him what he wants
> - improving navigation and usability in general (load time, page
> sizes, page
> names etc) for a more effective website (see Jakob Nielsen's useit.com and
> Steve Krug's "Don't make me think")
> - improving the technology behind the website to ensure that the sites
> display well on all browsers/platforms and that disabled people
> (such as the
> visually impaired) can use it successfully without being discriminated
> against
> - ensure that there are no errors that may confuse users and
> drive them away
>
> These are just some of the things involved in a proper
> optimisation process.
> The result is a website that is good for users, that people naturally link
> to because it offers useful information, that benefits of word-of-mouth
> because it has wider reach due to improved accessibility, that ensures a
> smooth relationship between site stakeholders and users.
>
> This sort of website earns its top spot in search engines, it
> does not trick
> its way up to it.
>
> Spammers may manipulate some of the criteria. But criteria change
> from month
> to month and spammers come and go. But by making it better, more
> usable and
> accessible, a website will stand on its own two feet and will not
> be brought
> down by algo changes.
>
> If improving a site, making it more usable and accessible means
> spamming to
> you, then what isn't spam? Keeping everything at a stand still?
> Throwing up
> a website and forgetting about it? Letting users muddle through confusing
> fancy/graphics intensive/flashy websites and then discover that it doesn't
> have what they were looking for?
>
> There will always be spammers, such as there are the "bad apples" in any
> industry but the fact is search engines are becoming more difficult to
> manipulate so more and more webmasters give up trying to do that. They
> realise that a long-term strategy based on building good websites ensures
> far greater success, less risk and yes, higher profits. This goes past
> optimisation, it's a mix of that and marketing, usability,
> accessibility and
> user psychology. And that, my friend, is not "spam, crookery, annoyance or
> nuisance" as you call it.
>
> Carmen
>
> PS: there is a document that takes the W3C accessibility
> guidelines point by
> point and explains why adhering to them improves search engine
> rankings. SEO
> is the best thing that has ever happened to accessibility and
> usability; it
> has a wider appeal and it forces webmasters to realise its importance in
> earning top spots in SEs. They will have to put it into practice if they
> want traffic and profits, and as a result they have to improve their
> websites. At this rate, SEO will turn accessibility into best practice far
> quicker than any organisation could have by publishing guidelines.
>
> >
> > >> they're crooks, nuisances, and annoyances.  :)
> > >> i assume that next you are going to suggest that spammers are just
> > >> hardworking legitimate businessmen.
> > >
> > > You're labeling me without right to appeal. Just because I work in
> search
> > > engine optimisation doesn't mean I spam and/or support spamming. Your
> mind
> > > is obviously set and I'm not going to get involved in a ALL SEO = spam
> > > debate which would interest nobody on this list. Please email
> privately
> if
> > > you wish to do so.
> >
> > you're free to explain how (and why) SE optimization isn't a bit of
> > crookery or algorithmic deception - and, in fact, i'd strongly
> prefer that
> > you do so on the list rather than taking it to private email.  [which
> > actually makes you look, rhetorically, as if you don't have a
> set of valid
> > defenses, rather than making you look more 'polite'.]
> >
> > a number of folks on the list might find your explanation useful and
> > instructive.
> >
> > --elijah
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-l-aoir.org at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://aoir.org/airjoin.html

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 05/10/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 05/10/2004