Reframes, people. Reframes.

SEO often comes prefixed with various terms—Technical, Brand, YouTube, Black Hat/White Hat, Teleological-SEO, Python-SEO (🤷‍♂️); And the list goes on. Being a patternaholic (not a word, don’t care), I wanted to break down the types I’m familiar with into distinctive context groups to unlock how SEO is communicated. So I started by segmenting the types of SEO into sub-types like Platform-SEO, Effort-SEO, and so on.

It makes sense and all, but it didn’t seem very helpful for me to draw constructive conclusions. So I asked myself - Am I actually helping someone with this? And so I decided to rethink the problem. And I quickly came to a simple conclusion: they can all be further distilled into two simpler and more fundamental ‘types’ that more easily communicate the promise of SEO - helpful, and not helpful.

It’s not that there’s no value in such labels. They are great for targeting, and useful for the sake of distinction, highlighting differences in expertise, focus, and priorities. (and more on that later.) But for me, these are redundant if we wish to understand the core value of SEO.

The role of SEO is to drive business outcomes, by helping businesses deliver solutions that will satisfy user needs and expectations in search, whilst overcoming search engine challenges. It requires an understanding of the problems and challenges each of these beneficiaries faces and striving to help them overcome their problems.

For SEO to achieve its role, it must be helpful.

And without further ado, the two types of —acting…?

Action!

Let’s begin with a convincing analogy. To drive the entire argument forward, I'd like you to watch this short excerpt from an interview with Tom Hardy that resonated with me I resonated with. (See if you can see what I did there).

In short—if you cannot spare the 40 seconds of a YouTube Short—Tom gets a bit defensive corrective philosophical when being called a 'method actor'. Here are some of the relevant points:

I'm not (a method actor...)

Fundamentally... there are two kinds of acting: Convincing, and not convincing, and then moved away between the two is any method necessary...

—Tom Hardy

He simplifies the definition of what he does into a single, easily communicable, and pragmatic approach. Yes, the more specific goal could be to have you entertained. Or to make you think. Or laugh. Or cry. Or get anxious. But for all of these to happen, the audience must first be convinced of the authenticity and the delivery of the acting. That is the primal and primary role of the actor.

And just like in SEO, there are many "types" of acting that are commonly referred to:

• There are different disciplines of acting, like 'Method acting', 'Classical acting', 'Modern acting', etc.

• There are different platforms, like Theater, Television, or the Silver Screen that may require a nuanced approach fit for the platform.

• There are also external areas where acting happens in or is required, beyond the realms of culture, like politics, relationships, negotiations, and most social interactions, really. We just rarely think about those as acting.

But they aren't so much ‘types’ rather than ways and methods the actors choose to pursue to fulfill their role, or contexts wherein delivery of the act happens. That is the essence of it. The why. The predominant rule of success. The ‘win criteria’, if you (I?) must use the word 'win'.

Finding your core, remembering your why’s

Simple truths, obscured by segmentations

This happens in every field. Take marketing, for instance, with its myriad of sub-types and prefixes like Digital, Brand, Content, Email, Affiliate, Social Media, Guerilla, etc. These subdivisions have value, but if you're anything like me, sometimes you hear people describe "Growth Marketing" and think, "I hear you, but aren't you just describing marketing with extra steps?”

Truthfully, the segmentation of a field by various aspects does hold some value. It provides context, helps us make important distinctions, and sets expectations—whether functional or as a part of identity building. It reflects how fields grow and adapt to changes and challenges.

What’s important is, however, that regardless of how complex and specialized things become—and with them our growing need to find new ways to communicate them—we remind ourselves that the key to success still lies in understanding and fulfilling the core purpose of that field.

Additional examples:

• Success in acting isn't just about making someone laugh or cry, nor is it about the dedication to a challenging or rigorous path. It's about convincing.

• Success in SEO is not about posting n words/articles, or “building” 100 links—it is about driving search satisfaction through helpfulness.

• Success in marketing isn't about 'growth hacking' or crafting catchy slogans. It's about connecting with your audience.

• Success in investing isn't about accumulating assets or mastering financial instruments. It's about wise allocation of resources that generates sustainable growth.

• UX research/design isn't about knowledge accumulation or designing beautiful interfaces. It's about guiding actions by solving real problems. (see reading recommendation at bottom of the article.)

• (Stereo)types? Simplify reality and make faster decisions.

I’m like my mother, I stereotype. It’s faster.

—Ryan Bingham (by George Clooney, ‘Up in the Air’).

Back to being helpful

What’s the purpose?

Just as acting must be convincing to fulfill its purpose (=achieve its outcomes), SEO must be helpful. But why is ‘helpfulness’ of all things the core promise of SEO? Let’s go back to the first principles of searching.

Searching is fundamentally about problem-solving, and help is at the core of this process. The ultimate goal of a searcher is to find a solution to their specific problem, and search engines are designed to provide that help. They do that by connecting searchers with businesses and individuals who can offer good solutions.

But this isn’t as streamlined as it sounds.

• How can audiences effectively (re)search their problem? How can they easily find what they are looking for? How can they tell what is a good/best solution?

• How can businesses know what to offer to individuals? What problems are worth solving that are solvable by the business? What problems are businesses causing themselves to their audience, that they are not familiar with?

• How can search engines accomplish that gargantuan task of matching every need with the most satisfying available solution to every potential query?

This is where the purpose of SEO begins. To help these actors overcome their challenges. SEO is about doing the things that help all the actors in this equation overcome their challenges in a way that mutually benefits everyone.

One common way to classify business outcomes online is conversions (goals met, e.g. purchases, sign-ups, read-throughs, etc.). Let’s consider that outcome as our starting point to analyze SEO’s purpose.

• User conversions are a result of users' expectations meeting relevant business offerings at the appropriate phase of the funnel.

• Before conversion can happen, you must first draw the relevant audiences in (traffic).

• To get traffic, you must first gain visibility for relevant problems (=queries). To gain (and keep!) search visibility (i.e. ranking), you need to help solve audience problems and meet their expectations, by:

  • Creating, offering, and communicating business solutions and collaterals that aim to provide a helpful and satisfying outcome for audiences. For example, SEO may help businesses ideate which collaterals are worth creating and communicating, in ways that would meet the searcher's intent and satisfy their expectations.

  • Overcoming search engine challenges (get discovered, crawled, understood, indexed, ranked, and served). For example, SEO is about ensuring there are sufficient ways to discover and index the content, like using links and creating sitemaps.

This definitely isn't all there is to it, and it isn’t as linear as that, as there are cross-dependencies at every step of the way due to the cyclical nature of search engine ranking. But at the end of the day, your focus as an SEO is to find ways to provide helpful solutions to search-related problems, aligning the needs and expectations of all three SEO beneficiaries (business, audience, search engine).

Helpfulness is a warm gun

It works… until it doesn't.

You may still wish to argue that helpfulness is still too vague. That purpose alone is disconnected from reality. You may have heard or even had experience with hacks, tricks, and shticks that weren’t “helpful” but drove search success (probably traffic). That there are other ways, not necessarily manipulative, that can more easily drive outcomes. “The secrets of the trade”. Hell, SEO has a notorious reputation for a reason. (Disclaimer: I find this article almost criminally one-sided, but also feel a lot of the criticism is valid and long overdue.)

You may have even noticed a certain part in the quote presented at the beginning by Tom Hardy:

Then moved away between the two is any method necessary, including fake it to make it...

—Tom Hardy

So I feel like this specific argument deserves to be broken down, for those of you who may still feel like SEO is about hacking that Google black box, that the game is rigged, and you should do whatever it takes to win (enter Black Hat SEO). I'm here to argue that any method necessary should mean any method that achieves helpfulness. Just like the acting example should mean “any method necessary” to deliver a convincing performance.

Putting purpose aside for now, I’ll break it down into two points - ethics, and merit.

1. Ethics - I'm not just blindly reiterating Google's principles here. I believe integrity is important, and must be considered in all types of service and communication. Ethical behavior fosters trust and builds a positive reputation, leading to increased audience engagement and satisfaction. So speaking for myself at least, anything that goes against it, is a no-go on a strict ethical standpoint.

2. Merit - But is not just a question of ethics, but of merit. Ethical concerns aside, there's also the question of achieving your desirable outcomes. To put it bluntly, unhelpful solutions, won't work in the long run, and they put you at a risk of achieving the opposite. Even if you managed to "push one through" the search engine algorithm, it is mostly, probably, just a matter of time until audiences react against it, and/or search engines refine their algorithms. Consider the following:

   1. You managed to rank #1 on Google for a query by hiding keywords/stuffing all the keywords into the page/buying fake links. You drove significant traffic for a while - your ‘any method necessary’ brute force approach worked. That traffic was useless for audiences, as they landed on the page and found there was no solution available for them. Google learned from their feedback that your page doesn’t provide a good solution for these queries and down-ranked your page.

   2. Under the same scenario, Googlers also picked up on these practices and realized their manipulative nature. It is now a policy violation and is considered spam. Their algorithms can now identify such behavior automatically. Your entire website may be flagged for de-ranking, even de-indexing.

This also helps to explain why doing things that are good for search engines—not just manipulative—doesn’t always/immediately/necessarily help. Improving the efficiency of discoverability and indexing doesn’t provide you with immediate outcomes when the actual solutions aren’t that great. It isn’t just about helping the search engines do their job. You must address and help solve real problems.

Audiences are looking for solutions to their problems. They vote with their mouses, keyboards, and fingertips. Their engagement provides the feedback required to signal satisfaction. And it is just a matter of time until the helpfulness of a result is determined. (It works until it doesn’t.)

Reflection: Help yourself help others

How to begin assessing helpfulness

In summary, I encourage you to reflect on your SEO practices in terms of helpfulness. Especially in volatile and speculative fields like SEO, some actions—not necessarily manipulative ones—may seem like a good idea, or could even seem to have achieved the desired outcome. But if you look through the horizon of short-term gains, do they really? How can you tell? Did they help anyone overcome a challenge? Are they sustainably helpful?

This question should be top of mind whenever you're at a fork in the road: Am I actually helping someone?

The real question is not whether SEO is or is not about helpfulness. The real question is: how do you determine helpfulness to begin with?

I believe you can start with my threefold framework: ethics, purpose, and merit.

1. Ethics. Ethics is subjective. There are some more universal aspects to it that I believe most are on board with. If you lack a moral compass, or if you do have morals but don’t find it actionable you can always look up search engines’ search policies as a starting point. But still - you do you and have the outcomes you deserve.

2. Purpose. Align yourself with the purpose of Search.

   1. Align yourself with the goals of the business. Help businesses solve problems that are worth solving for them. That make an impact. That makes sense. That not only drives audiences in but also tells a story about how that business respects and helps the audience.

   2. Align yourself with the needs of the searchers. Research their problems, but also try and feel their problems. Practice empathy. A good place to start is the concept of ‘Design Thinking’. Observe and engage before you design solutions. Do your research, but then reflect upon it to ensure the real issues are being addressed.

   3. Align yourself with the problems of search engines. Search engines strive for efficiency and audience satisfaction. Understand their algorithms, but more importantly, understand their core goal: to help users find the most satisfying result. Optimize not just for ranking, but for real user satisfaction, which search engines aim to measure.

3. Merit. Merit is determined by the outcomes of what you do.

   1. You can (and should) try to theorize and speculate regarding the potential outcomes by doing research, testing, etc. But at the end of the day, reality will determine helpfulness. Analyze what worked, and why, and verify its sustainability. Measure results, iterate, and improve.

   2. It's important to track outcomes through data, but also through qualitative feedback that indicates long-term success. Is your content continuously helpful? Does it still serve its audience months or even years down the road? Helpfulness is a moving target, and ongoing evaluation is key to maintaining relevance and value.

May you be forever helpful in your efforts.

A little respect before we go

One way to achieve clarity regarding your work's purpose is honest reflection on its impact. A while back I read this article by Ki Aguero. In it, she reflects upon the impact and role of UX research, and how it should lead to actionable insights rather than be done for box-ticking or professional vanity.

To me, this highlights the importance of understanding a field's core promise to ensure efforts are impactful by being aligned with its core values. It is all about understanding your ‘Whys’, and asking yourself how you contribute, and what problems you help solve.

• The point of UX research is action, not answers | Ki Aguero

Ah yes. The tricky balance between clear guidance and too much information. Google's careful stance on communicating ranking factors, like the whole user clicks is a ranking factor thing, can sometimes backfire when information finds its way out unwarranted.

Do you find this approach to encourage more innovative and authentic content, or does it lead SEOs down a path of trying to outsmart the system?

— Originally published on A Tale of Trust, Mistrust and Antitrust: Thoughts on the Google Uses Clicks for Ranking "Controversy"

Hate reading but love memes?

Unfortunately, Substack doesn’t allow a section-sharing button (yet?).

But you can:

1. Subscribe to my newsletter

Subscribe now

2. Go to your settings page (here).

3. Scroll until you see the “SEO Thinking” newsletter

4. Scroll until you see notifications

5. And disable everything other than “SEO Memes”

Not straightforward, and that’s like wasting precious 15 seconds of your life, I know; But that’s a small price to pay for high-quality entertainment delivered straight to your inbox at often reasonable time intervals.

Or, you can just, you know, read the thing. Not judging though.

ℹ️ℹ️) Also, this is kind of long, I recommend that you open the article to read outside the limiting constraints of your inbox. Freedom over form!

The TL;DRs:

The context:

• Google is being sued.

• A former Googler's testimony reveals the use of clicks in rankings.

• SEOs rejoice.

• An allegory is born.

The allegory:

• We always kind of knew Google uses user interaction in search. The real question is: why is this being celebrated as a revelation? In short: because Google and SEOs don't trust each other. In not so short? Just go and read the thing.

The main points & what’s offered:

• Google's cautious communication is driven by fears of spam, competition, low-quality content, and fear of misinterpretation & scrutiny, which causes it to inherently treat SEOs (and not just SEOs) with a guarded stance.

• SEOs carry a sense of entitlement due to their role in optimizing the web, leading to frustration over Google's vague guidance and lack of acknowledgment thereof.

• Google faces a communication dilemma, in which it expects to benefit from the guidance it provides, without causing manipulation or scrutiny. At the same time, these efforts frequently lead to misinterpretation and trust issues, presenting a complex challenge with no clear solution.

• Thoughts on the future of the Google-SEO relationship and trust, with the rise of AI plain view.

• A short screenplay

The Google antitrust

This article isn't about the trial, but just for the sake of context:

• Google is on trial, filed by the US Justice Department.

• The main argument is that Google broke antitrust laws, and illegally abused its power to preserve its monopoly.

• Eric Lehman, a former software engineer at Google who worked on search quality and ranking, said the following:

Pretty much everyone knows we’re using clicks in rankings. That’s the debate: ‘Why are you trying to obscure this issue if everyone knows?'

—Eric Lehman, former engineer @ Google, in US VS Google antitrust trial

…And there was much rejoicing.

The big reveal

A lot of the conversation looks at this reveal as if Google were caught with its pants down. The lie has been brought to light, and now SEOs can rejoice for knowing all along.

It appears that most care about this new revelation because it gives them one (or two) of two things:

• Vindication - This revelation confirms long-held suspicions, providing a sense of ownership over the truth they felt was missing. In their eyes, this is - no less - a moment of reckoning for Google's lack of transparency.

• Ideas - “novel” ideas on how to rank. (Sigh.)

But for me, this story (and mainly the feedback to it) isn't about clicks, ranking, or Google's algorithms. It is an allegory. One that highlights the relationship of mistrust between Google and the SEO community.

To put it bluntly, Google and SEOs don't trust each other. On one hand, SEOs don't trust Google to provide them with the whole truth, which leads to frustration on behalf of SEOs. On the other hand, Google doesn't trust all SEOs to be able to handle it responsibly. From the POV of Google - putting aside legal and competition-related reasons, if SEOs do get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, it will lead to SEO manipulation and more spam.

—> (A "You can't handle the truth!" meme is extremely befitting here, but it is way too easy, and so I must practice restraint.)

It is worth clarifying that this relationship has seen a tremendous improvement in recent years. The Google documentation about SEO has never been better and clearer (I'd even argue that it competes *with* SEOs on SEO-related topics). Google's Search Relations Team does a tremendous job both proactively explaining concepts and tackling community questions, some of which are sometimes borderline offensive and cringe-worthy. Hell, John Mueller even won an award for 'Global Search Personality of the Year'. What better way to nurture a relationship than shower praises? Even on the SEO community side, more SEOs than ever communicate Google's ideas, and use Googlespeak when explaining why to do SEO-related things. Hell, I’m no different.

And yet, the seed of mistrust is still evidently here. Google is aware of the dangers of just letting SEOs do what they do without proper supervision, and SEOs are still trying to pick the machine apart and understand how it works so they can succeed in search results, despite any guidance Google may or may not give them.

So who's at fault here? Why is the relationship so wrought with mistrust? Should Google talk to SEOs, or not? Who exactly are these SEOs, and who represents them? Are they a cohesive bunch? Do they all eat spam for breakfast? Are all degrees of spam equal, or is some spam equal more than others? Does more communication lead to a healthier search with less spam, or does it just widen the appetite of spammers? All of these questions, and more - may not be answered here. But some will.

We’ll need to consider both points of view in hopes of a revelation. Let’s start by putting both parties on the stand and listen to their opening statements.

The Google perspective: Let’s hedge things out.

I think it is safe to say, that Google's perspective is simply one of a guarded stance. At the heart of Google's behaviors, lies the need to defend itself against five things (there may be more, but I like five).

#1. Competition

Competition is pretty straightforward so I’ll spare you the reading time.

#2. Spam

Spam should also feel pretty obvious by now. I'm talking good old-fashioned old-school spam. Keyword stuffing. Cloaking. Hidden things behind not-so-hidden things. General manipulative efforts. And being honest, I don't think that SEOs can be attributed to all of the spam. There are plenty of bad actors out there who don't carry the SEO acronym on their chests. But some do, sure.

#3. Low-Quality waste

Low-quality waste should probably be expanded upon. But, because I have so much to say about it, I'll do it some other time, once I figure out what it is I have to say. In its entirety I mean. But in essence, the main issue with most content is that it can be very mediocre, to the point of it being a wasteful effort on Google's behalf to spend precious resources on it and to risk chipping away at the trust of their users.

#4. Misinterpretation

Oh lord, please don’t let me be misinterpreted

Over the years, Google has become more proactive regarding communicating SEO to SEOs. As a result of the increase in communication, there is fear of misinterpretation (I'm doing great, aren't I?).

Share SEO Thinking

The fear of misinterpretation has to do mainly with Google’s fear of saying one thing, and SEOs (and other avid listeners) interpreting another. This is arguably the most significant risk Google faces when discussing its services, practices, and policies. When you're this big, every slip-up matters. It can lead to outcomes that are either beneficial or detrimental. The web can improve, or it can suffer.

We can break down the fear of misinterpretation into three categories, in ascending order of importance:

• Misinterpretation of definitions - not correctly separating between theories and facts, and mixing between realities. This can lead to wasted efforts and misinformation.

• Misinterpretation of outcomes - misinterpretation of the expected outcomes or results. Or as far as SEOs are concerned - the expected rewards for their efforts. This can lead to angry creators and businesses, and eroding trust.

• Misinterpretation of intentions - this leads us straight to the next, and final point.

#5 Scrutiny

Google fears being scrutinized. Google being misinterpreted can bring forth unwarranted outcomes for the web (more on that later). But perhaps even worse for Google, these slip-ups can and probably will be weaponized against them. The controversy around "Google using clicks" serves as a prime example.

And with great power, comes great responsibility scrutiny.

The SEO perspective: I think I'm entitled to--

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

—Mark Twain, A Tramp Abroad

I believe the mistrust and frustration SEOs feel towards Google can largely be attributed to a single factor: they feel entitled. SEOs feel entitled to certain privileges & guidance that Google does not fully acknowledge. This begs the question: where does this sense of entitlement come from, and why do SEOs believe Google has to give them anything in the first place?

In short, I believe it stems from the crucial role they play in the digital ecosystem. Whether this belief is justified is subject to debate (and there are many differentiated opinions on the matter, to say the least). But that sense of entitlement does exist - regardless of its validity, or whether SEOs are consciously aware of it.

Let's briefly unpack:

#1. Google is the gateway(s) of the internet.

Yes, its dominance is continuously challenged, but it is the #1 touchpoint for most digital experiences. If you consider not just Google search, but YouTube (the second largest website in terms of visitors), Google Workspace, the Android OS + Appstore, Google Chrome, etc. It is not only the #1 website in terms of visitors, it is the gateway for most digital experiences and information gain. Even the next largest gateways get staggering amounts of their visitors from searches.

→ Datapoint1

As of January 2024, Wikipedia gets 83% of its visitors from organic search; Reddit gets 60%; Amazon - 20% (+ 5% paid search); X/Twitter - 13%; Instagram - 18%; Facebook - 12%; TikTok - 28%. For TikTok, that means 644M monthly visitors from Google Search alone).

#2. This gateway needs help to grow and maintain itself.

Like all user-generated content platforms, Google is only as good as the content created by its users. I’ll argue that the success of UGC platforms hinges on two pivotal axioms (there may be more, but I like two) -

• The demand and expectation for high-quality and relevant content information answers everything is always on the rise.

• As it grows, there comes a certain point where all platforms need to start policing their users' content (or face criticism and scrutiny).

Google must ensure that the indexable internet is not only continuously expanding and improving, offering greater and better content as time moves on, but also becoming more sustainable and manageable. And by that, I mean proactively making sure it is easier to discover, crawl, index, understand, and moderate.

#3. The User-agents of order and chaos.

(See what I did there? I’ll one day rid myself of the need to belabor jokes, but today is not that day.)

And so, enter the SEO industry. SEO is not just a way to get businesses some traffic, but an important agent of change for search and search engines. Meaning, that it is not just a way to optimize websites for search engines, it is a way to optimize the web for search engines. They help optimize websites, making them easier to discover, crawl, index, render, and understand, not just for the sake of websites but also for the benefit of the search engines themselves. These things not only make the search engines’ job easier, but they are also a tremendous contributor to cutting costs.

Their role is pivotal in not just cutting costs and enabling technology, but also in steering the digital ecosystem towards Google's vision. SEOs not only optimize, but they serve as actual messengers for Google's evolving needs—whether it's the shift to mobile-first, enhancing security, improving page experiences, eliminating interstitial ads for Google users, or enabling advanced rendering schemes and schema implementations for a deeper understanding of web pages. Whether they like it or not, SEOs advocate for Google’s priorities. It is one of the tools at Google’s disposal to steer the titanic ship (not to be confused with the ship Titanic) that is the World Wide Web. (‘The Webship’?)

And so, SEOs are a necessary catalyst for change. Google needs SEOs to achieve its mission(s) and remain the most relevant digital gateway. They are crucial for communicating necessary changes and championing maintenance, change, and moderation (even if more often than not, SEOs are the ones who require moderation). They help Google steer The Webship* for the benefit of both Google, users, and businesses.

*Grammarly is really angry with me on this one.

And SEOs - they know this, even if they do not explicitly think it. It is internalized. And from this understanding, comes a growing dissatisfaction with Google for not fully paying their dues. So they feel entitled. Should they not?

Entitled to what, exactly?

SEOs feel entitled for two things (there may be more, but I like two):

• Respect - in the form of cooperation, transparency, and actionable guidance.

• Rewards/compensation - in the form of search success.

Let’s consider how Google accommodates these expectations by moving the exhibits phase.

Exhibits

Mistrust Exhibit A: Googlespeak and you shall be misheard

Let’s consider the EEAT concept, and how many SEOs get it wrong, thus offering a glimpse into the communication challenge between Google and SEOs. Here’s a short explainer on EEAT and the Google Quality Raters Guidelines, but you can skip it if you already know about it.

—> Explainer on EEAT and the Google Quality Raters Guidelines

The Google Quality Raters Guidelines (henceforth QRG) is a document published by Google aimed to help human raters judge the quality of web pages and the search results leading to them. The document touches on topics like page purpose, page content categorization, content authorship, page quality, mobile friendliness, and more. 

Among these concepts, is the concept of EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness), which is a prominent framework offered by Google to its human Quality Raters.

Though the document doesn’t discuss ranking signals directly, it is widely viewed by the SEO community as a mirror of Google’s thinking and can be used to understand Google’s point of view regarding the quality of the results they wish to surface. 

It is also important to understand that the quality raters themselves don't impact rankings directly, as they are not evaluating the websites but the algorithms' success in surfacing the highest quality results. In that sense, they do not affect an individual website’s ranking, but rather the entirety of the indexed web’s ranking, as they provide benchmarks to Google’s algorithms and help train its machine learning systems. 

In an interview with CNBC, VP of Search Engineering at Google, Ben Gomes, said:

“You can view the rater guidelines as where we want the search algorithm to go,” Ben Gomes, Google’s vice president of search, assistant, and news, told CNBC. “They don’t tell you how the algorithm is ranking results, but they fundamentally show what the algorithm should do.”.

So what’s the problem with the EEAT concept? SEOs misinterpreted it.

I like the following quote from Lily Ray »

As is often the case with the exchange of ideas within the SEO community, the discussion around E-A-T quickly led to confusion, misunderstanding, and misconstruing of facts.

Many of these misconceptions stem from a disconnect between what is theory and what is currently live in Google’s algorithm.

—Lily Ray | Google’s E-A-T: Busting 10 of the Biggest Misconceptions

In short, Google offered a general framework to their quality raters, which SEOs picked up on. Being the ever-diligent-opportunity-seizers that they are (not judgemental), they brought it back home with them and kept showing it to people.

The results? For all intents and purposes, EEAT is a ranking signal and must be communicated as such to our stakeholders. What in actuality EEAT is? We'll figure it out and make sure the entire internet has it.

While the "failing to understand the difference between theory vs what is real" disconnect Lily Ray offers is an extremely attractive path to conclude this entire section with, let’s try and take a look at the source of the disconnect.

• In an official but non-policy document, Google offered a general framework for their quality raters - not SEOs, to use (but then Google kinda kept telling them about it).

• While reiterating over and over - this is not the way our algorithms are designed to rank content (but it is how they would if they did).

• Also, it doesn’t affect ranking (but it does help train and feedback on the ranking systems).

Okay, there’s some evident mixed signals there. But mixed signals aside, I think it is also worth talking about an inherent issue causing this confusion: deeply rooted differences in priorities and vision.

Google's priorities and vision focus on steering the web in a direction that benefits both them and their users while dodging the bullets of scrutiny. In contrast, most SEOs’ priorities are a bit more humble: ensuring their websites and the businesses they represent thrive in search rankings. They are less concerned with the broader trajectory of The Webship, focusing instead on what directly affects rankings in the short term, often summarized by their interest in whether "X is/is not a ranking signal." (See also #Teleological SEO).

The problem? Google isn't playing along. Statements like "focus on content", or write "people-first content" do not align with the direct, actionable insights SEOs seek to improve rankings. That is because Google's statements aren't meant to help SEOs rank their websites. They are meant to make sure Google's priorities are met, often even beyond the concept of ranking. And for some reason, SEOs keep forgetting that.

For example, making sure your content demonstrates EEAT isn't explicit enough. “Include author bylines”, however? Actionable. [✅Added to task list.] Now, do author bylines make sense? Very much so. But can Google come out and say "This is a direct ranking factor"? Nah-huh. Moreover, it probably isn’t, as it just doesn’t make sense to rank the entire thing just by the mere inclusion of a byline. Especially, if it can be faked.

At the end of the day - SEOs misinterpreting EEAT probably had more favorable consequences than negative ones. But this inexplicit hedged Googlespeak, which isn't providing SEOs with the direct actionable guidance they feel entitled to, directly contributes to a sense of mistrust in upcoming Google advice, and Google’s ability and intentions to guide them.

On the other end, consider just how negative the consequences could be, if instead of stating ‘Users are important, so you should focus on creating people-first content’ Google was to explicitly say, 'We directly use user interaction in rankings'.

“Directly use in rankings” is the holy grail for SEOs, as far as Google statements go. But even those could be misinterpreted and lead to detrimental outcomes. User interaction as a ranking signal? That's still too vague to act upon.

User clicks, however?

…That can be arranged.

Mistrust Exhibit B: Whose success is it, anyway?

I mentioned that SEOs’ expect two things - respect, in the form of clear and actionable guidance, and rewards, in the form of search success. We mainly talked about the former. Let’s talk about the latter.

There’s this other thing eroding the trust between SEOs and creators, and Google: the appropriation of creators' content by Google. Over time, Google has evolved its SERPs to not only answer users' queries more directly but also to keep users within its ecosystem for as long as possible. This evolution has given rise to features like featured snippets, knowledge panels, and other SERP elements that use creators' content to provide quick answers, often without requiring a click-through to the source website. What is commonly called, ‘Zero Clicks SERPs’.

This practice raises significant questions about the value exchange between Google and content creators, which has been debated for quite a while. For SEOs and creators, the effort to rank in Google's SERPs is not just about visibility but also about driving traffic to their sites. When Google uses its content to answer queries directly in the SERPs, the potential for traffic—and by extension, revenue—is diminished. This not only impacts the immediate return on investment for content creation but also raises broader questions about the ownership and value of content on the web.

But this phenomenon isn’t exclusive to content creation. It meets search engine optimization at large. When Google presents creators with unique ‘Structured Data’ solutions to make their content more easily understood by Google and ties it with certain visibility rewards, it essentially creates an equation: do this, and you shall be rewarded. And, this is exactly, what the SEO entitlement is all about. Clear, actionable guidance that leads to rewards.

The problem? It doesn’t necessarily do. It may not work; It may work but then get deprecated shortly thereafter (shoutout to FAQs); It may work, but used by Google for training their algorithms and later for their own search visibility.

Closing arguments and the communication dilemma

After reviewing both perspectives and going over some exhibits, let’s combine them to provide an overview of the two entities’ stances.

• SEOs are/feel they are working for the benefit of Google, so they feel entitled to two things:

  • Actionable guidance from Google.

  • Search success for following suit.

• More than ever, Google does deliver on that guidance, but it uses hedging practices. They often use ambiguous language and provide somewhat unactionable guidance and transparency, since too direct of guidance can lead to competition picking up, manipulation, and/or scrutiny.

• But, at the same time, Google fears being misinterpreted, as misinterpretation may lead to detrimental results - both on the web level and Google’s business level. So they must make sure they’re as clear as possible, without inadvertently overpromising on the potential outcomes of following its guidance.

• Since the guidance is often ambiguous, it ends up being misinterpreted anyway, by SEOs and creators who are starving for guidance that will help further their careers and businesses.

• That misinterpretation leads to various outcomes, which can either be good or bad for Google’s priorities.

• At the same time, that misinterpretation, especially regarding the expected outcomes, erodes the trust between these two entities. When guidance is not ambiguous, like in the context of technical guidelines, dissatisfaction arises if the expected outcomes are not met. This may be due to the outcome not being significant enough, being deprecated by Google not long after, or worse - used by Google for its own search success.

Quite the dilemma we have here, don’t we? It seems that Google has no perfect play. They can’t afford to be too direct, and they can’t afford to stay silent, as well, if they want to have their priorities met. More than anything, they are expected to guide. Perhaps in Gandhi lies the answer.

Speak only if it improves upon the silence.

—Mahatma Gandhi

The path forward, and the gathered stormclouds

(This is the conclusion section, by the way. Unfortunately, it is not very conclusive.)

While Google’s statements might seem vague (they are), they do, usually translate to a simplified axiom: focus on user satisfaction, not search engine satisfaction. Circling back to the story at hand - yes, we knew all along (about clicks, in case you've forgotten by now). But more than anything - we were never actually lied to. Well, we were probably never actually lied to. But I may be naive / not familiar with the entirety of history.

Google probably did tell us all along, just not always explicitly, directly, or in an actionable manner. They were hedging, because having their statements even slightly misinterpreted wrongfully, can do a lot of harm. To users. To the web. And to Google as a business.

So what is the way forward? How will the relationship between the platform and optimizers move forward? Will Google and SEOs learn to trust each other? Well, to answer that, let’s first consider that trust and mistrust are bi-directional. Both sides have to be willing to trust, and at the same time, be worthy of that trust. So in the spirit of ownership, I think the better question is - what should each side do to be worthy of that trust?

Like Google, I don’t have definitive answers for this one, but I do think that the path is much clearer than it used to be on both ends. (This is me being optimistic). However, this relationship may be facing its biggest challenge in years, perhaps even in the entire span of existence of both parties. (And this is me being pessimistic).

The ease of content creation using AI will definitely, if not already, present tremendous challenges for search in general, and the delicate balance of trust between SEOs and Google. Considering at the beginning as spam, Google shifted its policy towards allowing the use of AI content in search.

Our focus on the quality of content, rather than how content is produced, is a useful guide that has helped us deliver reliable, high quality results to users for years…

…As explained, however content is produced, those seeking success in Google Search should be looking to produce original, high-quality, people-first content demonstrating qualities E-E-A-T.

—Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content

Now, while it is less defensive than usual, that statement remains vague at points. If we’ve learned anything from the analysis presented in this kinda-long-by-now article, is that SEOs require two things from Google, as far as trustworthy communication goes: actionable guidance, and positive outcomes in the form of search success.

Let’s analyze some of the guidance’s unique elements in light of these expectations:

1. Is the guidance actionable?

1. “Those seeking success in Google Search should” - First of all, there’s clear consideration of the value of adhering to Google’s guidance - success in Google search. What success may look like at this point though, is up for anyone’s guess. More on that later.

2. “High-quality, people-first content demonstrating qualities E-E-A-T”: As for the recurring vagueness of subjective criteria like “high quality” and “people-first”, Google does provide some guidance to help make it less subjective. But while the guidance exists, it does remain vague in some areas, while raising some questions regarding what “high-quality” in the age of AI means, and whether or not these standards are even realistic.

   • For example, the following guidelines are extremely subjective and of absurd standards. Not every page is meant to be bookmarked, recommended, or revered.

     • “Is this the sort of page you'd want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend”.

     • “Would you expect to see this content in or referenced by a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book?”.

   • Some of the guidance Google offers regarding quality seems to be positive towards the capabilities of AI & LLMs. Specifically:

     • “Does the content have any spelling or stylistic issues?”

     • “Is the content produced well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?”

   • At the same time, the following questions make AI-generated content less appealing:

     • “Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis?”

     • “If the content draws on other sources, does it avoid simply copying or rewriting those sources, and instead provide substantial additional value and originality?”

3. “Original”: Those last two questions specifically move us to the last element worth considering in that statement: originality. This is probably the biggest head-scratcher. Can AI-generated content even be considered to be original? Isn’t AI-generated content not fraught with plagiarism to begin with (a question currently heavily discussed both publicly and in courtrooms)? The vagueness also lies in the extent of originality required; does it mean every piece of content must break new grounds, or is it enough to present known information uniquely? This, I believe, establishes the guidance as less than actionable, not only due to Google’s word selection but also because the waters are simply uncharted.

2. Can we expect positive outcomes in the form of search success?

In terms of the potential outcomes, Google's decision not to prohibit/enforce content creation using AI at this point raised many eyebrows (at least two), considering its usually more guarded stance, and the potentially detrimental implications of spam content on the state of the web. A few possibilities come to mind, considering this unusually open stance:

1. Google is very trusting of content creators and SEOs.

2. Google is very confident in its capabilities to fight low-quality auto-generated waste.

3. Google is aware of the state of the web’s content, being of very low quality regardless of AI. Getting more content created that has a higher benchmark for quality of writing is a positive, not a negative. So we’ll get some spam, but at least it will be coherent.

4. With SGE on the horizon, Google prefers to tackle the challenges associated with AI-generated spam rather than confront the scrutiny that would ensue from utilizing AI to produce content in its search results.

Our Your focus on the quality of content, rather than how content is produced, is a useful guide that has helped us deliver reliable, high quality results to users for years…

As the axiom goes, focus on user satisfaction, not search engine satisfaction.

…Let’s just hope AI won’t be opening old wounds.

A little respect (just a little bit), before we go home

Towards the conclusion of writing this article, while I was looking for some references, I stumbled upon this great article by Cyrus Shepard, which I highly recommend.

In his article, Shepard talks about how Google manipulates language and thought around antitrust issues through a practice he terms ‘Googlespeak’. In short - he writes about how Google is moderating employees to avoid using certain words that could later have antitrust implications, and instead suggesting alternative language that frames Google's actions in a positive, user-centric light (Huh. Kind of wasted my energy here, eh?). Shepard focused on the looming threat of antitrust and anti-competitiveness practices in general, and how Googlespeak makes anti-competitiveness thoughts and actions materialize in Googlers.

But to salvage the tons of attention I invested in this article (and yours!), let me just emphasize that both our approaches and focus differ a bit. Cyrus's approach is a bit (much bit) more critical than mine (don't get used to it), as he mainly focused on the ‘fear of scrutiny’ perspective. I think Google is being extremely cautious, as they should be, not just out of fear of scrutiny, but because they are in a tight spot all around. I also focused more on the Google and SEO relationship thing and how that relationship’s trust issues influence the Web.

But I guess Google has bigger fish to fry than SEOs.

I’ll leave you with a cringeworthy fake screenplay I wrote (wrote=took the transcript and changed some words) based on the popular Jack Nicholson monologue from “A Few Good Men”. I recommend having it play out in the background so my embarrassment can be alleviated by stardust.

A Few Good Searches // A Fake Screenplay by SEO Shower Thoughts

Google: You want answers?

SEO: I think I'm entitled to--

Google: You want answers?!

SEO: I WANT THE TRUTH!

Google: YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Google: We live in a world that has questions, and those questions have to be answered by people with skills. Who's gonna do it? You? You, SEO Weinberg?! I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom!

You weep for your traffic and you curse the algorithms. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That the algorithm update, while tragic, probably saved lives! (Hats off the medic update)

And my policies, while mysterious and incomprehensible to you, drives relevant results! You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at conferences...

You want me on that SERP. You need me on that SERP.

We use words like "relevance", "quality", "trustworthiness". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defining something. You use them as a deck’s headline!

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a webmaster who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very traffic that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a coding manual and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you are entitled to!

The TL;DRs

The context:

• This is an introduction to the ‘SEO Thinking’ paradigm.

• 'SEO Thinking' is my attempt to change how people think, talk, and understand SEO, and more specifically - the value of SEO.

• I aim to develop 'SEO Thinking' as a paradigm, Explore SEO's unique nature as a problem-solving discipline, address current problems in and with SEO, communicate its value beyond generating search engine traffic, introduce frameworks to better comprehend and communicate SEO, and discuss SEO ethics.

The problems:

• SEO is often viewed as a means to an end, which blinds the relevant stakeholders from the intrinsic values of the process. That may result in detrimental outcomes, the least severe of which is traffic.

• SEO is no longer just about SEO. Therefore, it is time to go interdisciplinary. But for that to happen, the perception gap around what SEO means must change.

What to expect:

• Expect more ‘How to think about SEO’ and less ‘How to do SEO’

• I believe all SEO-involved personnel stand to benefit from reading this. Everyone who is working at, with, or around SEO in any capacity.

• Thinking was here before me. I will share some respect to, and valuable resources from the works of others.

• This is a work in progress, not a finalized product. There’s no consistent schedule as of now.

Before the beginning: What is my quest?

I always wanted to use the Monty Python ‘Bridge of Death’ as a framework to introduce myself, so I’ll go ahead and do just that.

My name is Shalom Zafrany.

My quest is to change the way people think, understand, and talk about SEO.

I Plan (with a capital ‘P’, yes) to achieve this by:

• Further developing the idea of SEO Thinking as a paradigm

• Exploring the unique nature of SEO as a problem-solving discipline

• Talking about current problems with and in SEO

• Communicating the value of SEO outside the realms of search engine traffic

• Introduce a few frameworks that may help make sense of and communicate SEO

• Discuss some SEO Ethics

And my favorite color is green. Or is it blue?

What are the core problems we’re dealing with?

Problem #1: Teleological SEO (or the ‘means to an end SEO’)

→ TL;DR: SEO is often viewed as a means to an end, which blinds the relevant stakeholders from the intrinsic values of the process. That may result in detrimental outcomes, the least severe of which is traffic.

Like all good things (said no one), let’s start with a Wikipedia quote.

Teleology or finality is a reason or an explanation for something which serves as a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal, as opposed to something which serves as a function of its cause…

…An intrinsic property is a property that a thing has of itself, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.

- Wikipedia [1, 2] (highlights my own)

Put differently, teleological thinking means "start reasoning with the end in mind". It's not a bad thing by itself, and it can even prove helpful at times - especially if you are *trying to simplify a process*. The problem is that it may oversimplify complex problems and systems, lead to a poor understanding of a process, and blindside you from the intrinsic values of the actual process, which are often the very reason for the outcome to begin with.

For example, let us say, you desire to become famous. So you start with the goal in mind, saying - 'To become famous, I need to become viral or well-known by many'. One can become viral or well-known in many ways (and I'll let your imagination run course here.) Not all of them will make one popular, or respectable. In this case, failing to look at the process, makes one miss out on the intrinsic values of being famous to being with.

You may have achieved the result you wanted, but without the results’s value that made it attractive in the first place.

Here lies the first problem: The way most people think about or understand SEO is often teleological. This often leads to neglect of the process, misunderstanding, and misappreciation of the intrinsic properties of SEO, which are the main reasons for its extrinsic properties or outcomes in the first place.

I believe, that for a lot of people and organizations, SEO equates to SEO traffic. Many will only reduce SEO to its extrinsic value, which is the search engine traffic it generates. We’ll call this ‘Teleological SEO’ henceforth. By thinking of SEO with nothing but the end goal in mind, you may either be playing darts in the dark, inhibit learning, or worse - lose track of how it’s gained.

These are the key issues that arise from ‘Teleological SEO’:

1. Ethics & Integrity - by failing to consider the process, one may also overlook ethical considerations. This very type of thinking is what manifested 'black hat SEO' practices. For many, SEO traffic justified spam, deceit, and a great - and perhaps even unrivaled in a way - collection of offhanded tactics. Putting ethics aside, this also leads to a loss of integrity, respect, and reputation, not just for the SEO industry, but for the businesses practicing it, as well.

2. Unawareness & Aimless Execution - teleological SEO is bound by circular reasoning. It is doing without understanding, or having a clear idea ‘why’. Because you do SEO in order to gain SEO. And you gain SEO, by doing SEO. What SEO in actuality is, is beside the point for the sake of this achievement. You just don’t know. Or worse - you don’t care. You know that there are keywords involved. And some links. And sometimes, people will tell you to pay for those links. And you do it, because you want SEO traffic, so you do SEO.

3. Impediment to Learning & Growth - the teleological approach, with its focus on end goals rather than the process, also hinders the opportunity for learning and growth. This can be particularly detrimental in a field like SEO, which is constantly evolving. Ignorance of the actual process makes it difficult to stay updated with changes and to make new, more effective strategies based on past experiences. As a result, one may continue to make the same mistakes, wasting resources and opportunities. Is it working? Why? How can you tell? Will it work again? Are you learning anything? This is not limited to missing out on the opportunity of learning in SEO. You are also failing to learn about your market, your users, and your business. SEO is a pool of valuable knowledge and insights. You are overlooking its treasures.

4. Sustainability & Longevity - a teleological approach often leads to short-term tactics, which may lead to temporary boosts in traffic, but they are not sustainable in the long run. You lose sight of what matters in the quest for traffic and growth. You lose sight of your audience, what matters to them, and their expectations of you. You may have gained traffic, but that doesn’t mean you gained your audience’s attention or respect. So I ask again. Is it (really) working?

I believe one of the solutions to these problems and threats, is breaking the equation of SEO and traffic, by highlighting the intrinsic and valuable properties of the SEO problem-solving process.

'SEO Thinking' is my attempt to change how people think and talk about SEO, and more specifically - the value of SEO.

Problem #2: The meaning of SEO has changed. It isn’t its own thing anymore.

→ TL;DR: SEO is no longer just about SEO. Therefore, it is time to go interdisciplinary. But for that to happen, the perception gap must change.

ℹ️) Note: In this context, I use 'discipline' and 'industry' somewhat interchangeably. This is because the boundaries between the SEO industry (the economic sector producing SEO products or services) and the SEO discipline (the body of knowledge and expertise in SEO) are deeply intertwined. I think this is mainly due to it being a marketing-meets-technology (MarTech) industry, and a relatively new one, at that.

SEO, similar to most digital services, is unique (not special) in that its services and products emerged before any formal theory or philosophy. Solutions were developed in response to immediate market needs (or vacuum). Consequently, the discipline of SEO has evolved as a reflection of these commercial developments, representing a culmination of theories and knowledge that have been derived from the industry's practical experiences.

As a discipline, SEO has existed for probably nearly 25 years now. It gradually evolved and changed many times over, and while I believe that the foundations are mostly the same (get discovered → get evaluated → get indexed → get ranked → get engaged; repeat), it has changed. It became more complicated, nuanced, and more about everything that is not SEO. More specifically, it’s not that SEO is no longer about SEO, but rather that ‘SEO success’ (however you may define it), is no longer just about SEO practices.

These changes are the cause of a significant perception gap between SEOs and non-SEOs, and they resurface whenever SEO is brought up. It doesn’t matter who you talk to. It could be people in business leadership roles (“How much traffic can you get me?“), functional roles (“Can you tell me what keywords to put on the page so we can rank?“), colleagues (“Don’t do X because Google doesn’t like that“), or my mom (“Can you tell Google I can’t find the sofa Facebook showed me yesterday?“).

This perception gap essentially boils down to four key areas:

• The expectations of SEO & SEOs (the expected results)

• The definition of the SEO’s responsibilities (the scope of their work)

• The SEO delivery (the practical implementation expected from SEO)

• The SEO’s ability to fulfill these expectations and responsibilities and bridge the gap between them

The good news is, that in a way, this "evolution" is already happening (see some recognition of this sentiment in the next section). These changes were brought on as much by the growth and technical capabilities of the search engines and the internet at large, and by the growing demand (and by extension - the competition) for SEO, which forced it to grow as a role. But I believe we are currently at the best time to think about where SEO should be as a discipline.

I believe that the next evolution of SEO as a discipline is evolving from a multidisciplinary field to an interdisciplinary field.

→ Explore this idea further: If you wish to explore this idea, here's “A rather brief, irreverent, and probably historically inaccurate analysis on the evolution of SEO” piece that I wrote about these changes. But if you don't care to read through it, here's a summary of it:

Setting expectations

→ TL;DR: Expect more ‘How to think about SEO’ and less ‘How to do SEO’

What I am offering:

• Different ways to start thinking about SEO and its intrinsic values (i.e. not just traffic). Mainly as a problem-solving framework, and a way to benefit the web and its users.

• A set of frameworks that will aid in creating a shared understanding of an often misunderstood discipline. Which I hope helps improve communication and set healthier expectations.

• A discussion on the current problems with and in SEO.

• Some ranting, probably.

• High-quality top-tier memes.

What I am not offering:

It is not, by any means, a guide on 'how to do SEO', nor am I going to discuss best practices, specific strategies, tactics, checklists, and so on. So putting it bluntly, if you wish to learn 'how to do SEO' - this is not the place. I will try and guide your thinking, not your fingers. Which will then hopefully guide your fingers.

Why not?

I know it is not trendy in current professional spaces to 'not get down to business'. And I know there's a somewhat inflationary surge of 'framework' content sprawling around, that doesn't show you straight to the ropes.

Truth be told, many great resources already do a good enough job of teaching how to do SEO. So no need for more, I think. (I may or may not share some resources, but only if they help in advancing understanding. Time will tell.)

But more importantly, through both consulting and teaching SEO, I have come to a simple conclusion. SEO is (relatively) easy to do, not as easy to understand, and much harder to explain. And as time passes on, the explanation part bears more weight (more on that in a few paragraphs).

You can probably pick SEO up as a practice in a matter of weeks or months. Not all of it, granted, but enough to start 'doing' and call yourself a Guru/Ninja/[enter your preferred over-the-top cringe title]. And, you can do a lot of it without really understanding it, just from familiarizing yourself with a set of practices that may result in [enter your definition of search success]. I’ve seen it happen. Just follow the usual routine and process and hope for the best.

Explaining SEO on the other hand, requires not only a good understanding of SEO. It also requires a good understanding of how SEO interacts (and doesn't) with other efforts; it requires experience, that will shatter what you’ve previously learned, so you can separate truths from myths; and a decent set of soft skills. The latter I am ill-equipped to train on from the discomfort of my Ikea sofa.

And more than everything, I’d argue that explaining (communicating) SEO is as important today, as the doing part - if not more. There's a growing need for SEOs that can work within the thresholds and context of a given system - and not outside of it. And that is a good thing. But it comes with some serious challenges.

Who stands to benefit from reading this?

→ TL;DR: All SEO-involved personnel stand to benefit from reading. Everyone who is working at, with, or around SEO in any capacity.

This is for SEO-involved personnel. What does SEO-involved mean, you ask? Anyone whose day-to-day requires considering SEO requests and definitions. Do you do SEO, work with SEOs, or may have to consider SEO definitions in your work? Do SEOs come knocking at your door (be it a physical or a digital one) from time to time with questions or recommendations? Then congratulations, you are SEO-involved, and I believe you can benefit from continuing reading.

Yes, this should prove to be of some value for SEOs as well. SEOs often struggle to communicate their work and value. Even more so, they struggle to come to an agreement regarding their responsibilities and expectations.

So, I hope to make this interesting and valuable to all SEO-involved readers - be they SEO or not, by mainly exploring one key question: What problems can SEO solve (or create), how, and why should this matter to you?

So who’s it not for?

In general, that leaves non-SEO-involved personnel. People who don’t actually do or work with SEOs, and only have SEO as a traffic reporting channel in mind. Plainly speaking - those who only care about the results, and not so much about what goes into the process of earning it, are less likely to benefit from reading this.

Why?

One might argue that those are exactly the ones who stand to benefit most. Well, It’s just that I think that the real value of SEO is much clearer to see via the lens of your day-to-day responsibilities intersection. By witnessing its positive potential in your work and challenges. But I may be wrong.

Read on at your own peril.

A little respect (just a little bit)

→ TL;DR: Thinking was here before me. This is a standing section where I will share some respect to, and valuable resources from the works of others.

It’s important to clarify, that I am not inventing the wheel here. Yes, “Thinking” has been done before me. “SEO Thinking” as well. The notion of communicating SEO as an important aspect of doing SEO is not new. Something has to come from something. A lot of SEOs are thinking, practicing, contributing, and communicating healthy approaches to SEO, and have been for years. I have read, talked to, and encountered many. Which in turn, heavily influenced and helped shape my thinking.

In a sense, they paved the ground for what I wish to do here - advocate for healthier SEO thinking and mindset, and help it evolve further into a respectable interdisciplinary field.

In that spirit, throughout my posts, I’ll make a conscious effort to recommend resources that I believe provide the best ROA (*return-on-attention* - my personal and only KPI for good resources). From those individuals who focus on helping people understand SEO, and advocate (whether they mean to or not) for a healthier SEO mindset.

This will be a standing section in every future article, and I’ll try and keep the recommendations in the context of the piece you’ll be reading. *Substack readers: feel free to check my substack recommendations widget as well, under the same premise.

So here’s a little respect (just a little bit):

→ AJ Kohn's Blind Five Year Old - as far as I know, AJ doesn’t have a Substack, so I make it a point of sharing his entire blog. It is a general and invaluable source of inspiration to me, as an SEO professional. I dare say, that a lot of my professional leniences and beliefs stem from AJ's writings - and none of those failed me as of yet.

After the ending: A final introductory note

→ TL;DR: This is a work in progress, not a finalized product. There’s no consistent schedule as of now.

I have one last thing to share regarding this project.

It is a work in progress. This is a lab. You and me - we are all lab rats. I do not know where I am going with this yet. Yes, I do have some thoughts in mind, a long-thinking mileage on these subjects (which I preach on daily), a somewhat carefully laid structure, and tons of drafts. But it keeps changing, and just this introduction part took me several months to get out. I rewrote it at least 10 times, and I‘m still not that happy about it. Thinking is hard. Writing is harder. Finding time to write is hard. Writing as a form of thinking can be both complimentary and detrimental to the process. You are naked before the page, yourself, the world, and your god(s).

But waiting should be easy cause I’ve yet to prove anything to you.

Anyway, just thought I’d let you know.