A few days ago an article by Chris Williams was published in the Guardian UK about the death knell of Google—and that the perpetrator of this death would not come by competitors like small-time Cuil or Yahoo!, but by SEO.
Am I biased? Well a little (this is a blog at “SEO”.com). However, I believe, realistically, Williams’s prediction won’t happen anytime in the near future. I don’t honestly believe that quality “white hat” SEO will fell the Silicon Valley search giant.
Search engine optimizers have an indirect relationship with Google (or any large search engine that holds a majority of the search market). If Google dies, they die. I believe SEOs and Google hold a symbiotic relationship somewhat like the cleaner fish and its larger host. Without Google, SEO is pointless. The cleaner fish without its larger host will starve to death or become easy prey. “White hat” SEO also helps inexperienced website owners make their sites more relevant. Though they may have images of personal injury law cases and the Wyoming Mountains on their website, they will never be found for “Wyoming personal injury lawyer” until they’ve got relevant, index-able content (this method may soon transformed as Web 3.0 advances). Thus Google benefits with more relevant search results.
However, I think Chris Williams was really referring to the spamming tactics that “black-hat” SEOers employ. Frankly, I consider these folks further from SEO and closer to Search Engine Deceivers. Spammers are like parasites that kill their host. As science goes, parasites that kill their host will eventually die-off from a lack of hosts. If all SEO turned to spamming for results, then Google might have a problem.
But I’m really not worried about Google’s health on the spam battlefield. Google continues to evolve in immunity against spamming parasites. It’s their specialty. Isn’t Google’s progressive, anti-spam tactics the reason for its successful grasp of the market share?