The SEO community was in a buzz yesterday when The Verge published an entertaining, detailed, and long piece titled Did SEO experts ruin the Internet or did Google? The short answer is no, SEOs didn't ruin the Internet, Google did not ruin the Internet, and the Internet is not ruined. But the article and author said otherwise.
I was hoping not to cover it but I cover what the SEO community is buzzing about and oh boy was there a lot of buzzing yesterday, so much so that I cannot include all that buzz in this story.
It is a super long read but in short, what the author, Amanda Chicago Lewis, did was go with a the premise that the Internet and the Google search results are worse today than they were 10 or 20 years ago and she tried to figure out why that is the case.
I've been reporting on search for 19 years and 11 months (a month from today is my 20 year anniversary of covering search) and I will say these things in reaction to this story:
- Search is way better than it was in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 an even 2020
- The changes Google makes to search not only drive better search quality, in general (not always - there are plenty of examples where Google gets it wrong)
- The changes also push publishers (site owners) to build better sites; better content, faster sites, more secure sites, etc
- The stories told in the story are about the early days of SEO
- The early days of SEO were like the wild west and Google was super easy to manipulate
- SEO conferences no longer have crazy wild parties sponsored by Yahoo
- Most of those who told those stories mentioned in the Verge story no longer do SEO because SEO is harder now
- It is super hard to trick Google, not that it is impossible but it is incredibly hard
- SEOs in the late 90s and early 2000s were in their basements monetizing low cost web sites
- Now SEOs go to corporate offices, get mentioned on public companies earnings reports, have titles like VP of SEO
- SEO is no longer the wild west and it is a legit and respected profession
Again, this whole article started with a premise that internet search, aka Google, is worse today than it was a decade or two ago. That is 1000% false, I know, I wrote over 40,000 stories stories on Google Search in 20 years. SEOs have matured and are real professionals, with real people, real families, getting a salaried paycheck, health insurance, 401ks and stock options.
It seems as if this author doesn't know what the internet or search looked like 15 years ago.
I believe the author worked on this story for over six-months, she spoke to some really credible SEOs and I am super impressed she was able to speak with both Danny Sullivan and Matt Cutts. Plus she writes incredibly well and the whole read was absolutely entertaining.
I recommend you read the responses from Danny Sullivan and Danny Goodwin and Gianluca Fiorelli on this. Oh, and the Verge's Editor-In-Chief Nilay Patel posted about Sullivan's response here saying, "ultimately Google’s guidance was so opaque that we excluded quick posts from the search index rather than accept the traffic risk. (We’re going to let them get indexed soon, though. Yolo.)" I should add that I do find it interesting that Danny Sullivan had an email chat with The Verge about its redesign for SEO purposes... I do like that the feedback was "opaque," but that is for a different story (which Danny addressed in a postscript on his blog)...
Techmeme also has a good roundup of the reaction to this story.
I'll just quote some of those who were quoted in this story, so you have their perspective:
For the record, SEO’s aren’t pirates. Nor have I attended conferences in Hawaii or Barbados. 😉 Interesting wrap up that someone who is an actual former criminal…is staying away from SEO now. Huge article here. Grab coffee. Drink carefully. https://t.co/MCNznztiAb
— duane forrester (@DuaneForrester) November 1, 2023
BTW, here are some alternate article headlines that could have been written, based on the things I said in the Verge interview that were left out:
— Lily Ray 😏 (@lilyraynyc) November 1, 2023
- How the SEO industry has evolved and matured over the years
- Why SEOs have a bad reputation and why it's largely inaccurate
1/3
- Why Google should be given credit for trying to mitigate misinformation and promoting E-E-A-T
— Lily Ray 😏 (@lilyraynyc) November 1, 2023
- Why Google's job is so hard: pleasing shareholders and its extremely diverse user base, all at the same time while staying profitable
- Why not all bad results are the fault of SEOs
The Verge had an article today on SEO. I got mentioned a fair bit. I wanted to share some of my personal thoughts about that (along with apologies to anyone who I might have made feel that I -- and Google Search -- aren't humble about the task of improving search and the…
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) November 1, 2023
I think it's relevant perspective when the article itself could be read to think I'm somehow having meetings with companies to give special advice. I don't. We don't. That's an excellent example of it. Plus, The Verge has done a giant series of articles criticizing us. Just doing…
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) November 1, 2023
Here are just some select community responses, I really can't include them all:
Every single person mentioned (save one) in the article took a stage because of HIM. He started SEL which ALSO gives SEOs a voice. And Danny's right about the Google of past and present. Do your homework if you write about SEO history.
— Debra Mastaler (@debramastaler) November 1, 2023
Seems like The Verge has good SEOs themselves. Unfortunately this article seems very biased and click-baity. https://t.co/hbXebg6KTV
— SEO Südwest (@SEO_Suedwest) November 1, 2023
So there are bad actors in every business. This article makes them the "face" of an entire SEO industry. Those bad actors represent miniscule fractions of the whole of the industry - did they make a lot of $ ? Yes absolutely they did.https://t.co/ShaW8W45vx
— Tad Miller (@jstatad) November 1, 2023
I have no shortage of things to say about this but I'll just say that a clearly biased journalist forming a narrative around how a subset of people within an industry ruined said industry is rich.
— David Veldt (@DavidVeldt) November 1, 2023
"The people who ruined the internet" via @verge https://t.co/p1cdayxVw6
Interesting read from @msamandalewis, but it fails to underscore the extent to which The Verge itself is aggressively (and effectively) engaged in SEO. In fact, they're so good at it that I often use them as an example with my clients.https://t.co/iCR9mBUDjR
— Jim Malec (@JimMalec) November 1, 2023
The sad truth is,
— Darth Autocrat (Lyndon NA) (@darth_na) November 1, 2023
there is a % of the SEO sector that was/is/always will be,
scummy.
There's also a fair sized % that aren't actually "SEO's",
but are doing (what they think is) SEO.
But the majority - are good folk, trying to do the right things, the right way.
The SEO world is SO MUCH BIGGER than the mostly icky one described in today's Verge article.
— Cyrus SEO (@CyrusShepard) November 1, 2023
It's millions of small business owners. It's the restaurant serving a mean gnocch. It's the liberal arts college in Iowa. It's the non-profit working with kids
It's a lot of good people
I agree... Nevertheless, the low barrier to entry, makes this industry prone to this characterisation.
— Pedro Dias (@pedrodias) November 1, 2023
We will always have to deal with misconceptions from people observing what we do, while trying to keep the industry "honest"... The ones doing good work, are often the quietest
Today, in SEO.
— Aleyda Solis 🕊️ (@aleyda) November 1, 2023
1) Not a day without drama eh? 🫠🙈
2) I’m sad that despite the maturity of our industry, the focus on user search experience in the last few years, a journalist decided to take such a negative angle.
3) wonder how she works with the SEO of the Verge 🙈 https://t.co/RjJqfDGA02
Given her bias, it is not inconceivable that the Editor specifically ordered she not interview their own SEOs. Never hatchet-job your own, right? ;)
— Ammon Johns♞ (@Ammon_Johns) November 1, 2023
The author seems like she went in with a POV and came out with a more nuanced understanding of the business and the broader challenges of categorizing digital information in 2023, beyond just Search.
— Blair MacGregor (@blairmacgregor) November 1, 2023
I think it encapsulates the duality of SEO as an industry (white & black hat)… https://t.co/CXnVgr3u4u
Also, believe it or not, myself and the companies I have worked for have chosen not to take on various SEO projects that we felt would - wait for it - contribute to ruining the internet https://t.co/zyVWvwFIYP
— Lily Ray 😏 (@lilyraynyc) November 1, 2023
I keep wondering why people are sharing it. Like, isn't that helping just spread crap?
— Joy Hawkins (@JoyanneHawkins) November 2, 2023
I will say the @msamandalewis 's piece was a super entertaining read (hear old stories from old friends) but it describes SEOs from 20 years ago, not what SEOs do today - it is a different world in search today https://t.co/Vuef25tWEZ
— Barry Schwartz (@rustybrick) November 1, 2023
I am excited to read the comments below...
Forum discussion at X, HackerNews, Reddit and Threads.
