I’m starting to wonder if SEO isn’t one of the worst things to ever happen to the web… and I don’t just mean the stupid gaming of it, or the awful “SEO Expert” field; I mean the actual overall concept. The question I’m pondering is: on some level, does the existence of SEO actually change the way we are creating content for the web? In the backs of our minds (if not the fronts), are we carrying along this set of rules and constraints, outlined by the concepts of SEO, that are actually influencing the content we create? Are we following Google’s guidelines because it’s actually Best Practices, or are we just making their job easier (i.e. no need to work on refining their search algorithm if everyone’s already crafting content specifically designed to work with their current algorithm)….

I often think that the content that’s the most plainly, dryly written is what gets rewarded by these SEO guidelines the most, and while I think that type of content is great for Wikipedia, I don’t think it’s so great for the web as a whole.

SEO-Fork

Whoa, Pitchfork graduated from the top of the Google Juicing class! Whereas most sites post an item, and it’s an item, Pitchfork posts the same item multiple times, all crosslinked (building up beefy Google Pagerank™ flow). As an example: today, Spoon has a new video for “Written In Reverse”— Pitchfork:

• “Premiered” the video in their Pitchfork TV section
• Then announced it as a news item in the News section
• Then posted it as an item in the Forkcast section