I don't understand the point of this article at all. It seems to be saying that because some people do search engine optimization, everyone else will also have to do search engine optimization in order to compete, and Google will have to get better at ignoring this optimization... and this somehow results in the web being better than if everyone had spent the time working on the actual form and content of their sites instead?

Seriously, I'm really not following the argument for why an arms race is better than no arms race.

Relax, calm down, remember, this is the Internet and you're on Slate. That means you don't have to think, comprehend or understand. All you have to do is click on the links and follow the happy little bunnies and dancing babies to a site where you can stare at all the porn you want for free, unless you want the really good stuff.

<link>

Yeah, this article was just another example of someone who is not technically competent trying to show how tech-hip he is by making a very uninsightful post about search engines. Everyone who cares about search engine technology already knows the basics of how it works. Companies are fighting for top positioning... blah blah yawn.

This article could have been written 10 years ago.

I respectfully disagree -- I think this article would have been considerably less relevant ten years ago, or even much more recently, simply because awareness of more sophisticated SEO practices has taken a painfully long time to register with a wide swath of companies and content providers--those who are still under the mistaken impression that having good content is still all one needs for good search placement.

The reason the arms race is good is because the work that's done to keep up in the race does improve web clarity for everyone. Pretty much everything that Google ranks highly also coincides with basic readability. I've advised several friends/companies about SEO, and in the end their sites always end up cleaner and more streamlined for their human users as well.