• Register
• Log in

SEO Theory - SEO Theory and Analysis Blog

Algorithm analysis, Web community relationship analysis, SEO practices and techniques, industry news, etc.

• Home
• About SEO Theory
• SEO Glossary

The Theorem of Search Engine Optimization

Posted by Michael Martinez on October 28, 2007 in SEO Theory

Search engine optimization is far from being formalized or recognized as a scientific discipline but there are axioms and rules that govern how search engine optimization works.

For example, it is axiomatic (self-evident) that search engine optimization seeks to obtain optimal performance from listings in search engine results. You are not optimizing if you don’t seek optimal results, but how we define optimal results is hardly axiomatic.

It is also axiomatic that search engine optimization is entirely dependent upon the indexing and ranking algorithms of search engines. That is, the optimization strategy must conform to the expectations of the search algorithm. You cannot optimize in any way that contradicts how a search engine ranks its listings.

Finally, it is axiomatic that search engine optimization is not natural in that it is the product of knowledge and awareness. In other words, natural search results are unoptimized because the listings act without knowledge of or awareness of the search engine algorithms. Optimized search results are produced only through knowledge of and awareness of the search engine algorithms.

We do not need to have perfect knowledge of a search engine algorithm in order to be aware of it. Nor do we have to be fully aware of a search engine algorithm in order to have knowledge of it. We could express our knowledge of the algorithm within a very limited scope, and we can accumulate knowledge of only a very finite portion of an algorithm.

Pefect knowledge and full awareness of a search engine algorithm confer infinite scope upon an optimization strategy. There is no theoretical limit to what you could achieve in the search results if you had perfect knowledge and full awareness of search engine algorithms.

Imperfect knowledge or partial awareness of a search engine algorithm confer limited scope upon an optimization strategy.

Together, imperfect knowledge and partial awareness of a search engine algorithm confer finite scope upon an optimization strategy.

The difference between limited scope and finite scope is expressed as a function of depth. Call it the difference between a long line segment and a short line segment. In a competitive situation, the optimization strategy with limited scope is more effective than the optimization strategy with finite scope.

Both limited scope and finite scope are elastic or flexible. You can leverage what you know or what you are aware of.

Lacking either partial knowledge or partial awareness (that is, being only partially knowledgable of or only partially aware of a search engine algorithm) confers minimal scope upon an optimization strategy. There is no flexibility in minmal scope, no elasticity. That is, you have nothing to leverage. You can only perform certain functions and the returns will be minimal.

Minimal scope is like a fixed point on a graph compared to the short, elastic line segment of finite scope and the long, elastic line segment of limited scope.

Finally, having neither knowledge nor awareness of a search engine algorithm confers blind scope upon an optimization strategy. That is, there is no optimization through blind scope. In order to optimize, you have to at least know or be aware of something.

I’m not sure anyone actually has infinite scope for the major search engines but if there are such people you can probably count them on fewer than 10 fingers. SEOs have finite scope at best, and the vast majority of SEOs probably have no better than minimal scope.

But what is search engine optimization? It is not as simple to define as all the proposed definitions would suggest. To one person, search engine optimization may refer to capturing top placement in unpaid search results. To another person, search engine optimization may refer to capturing top placement in paid search listings.

Both people would be correct to use the expression either way.

In order to be scientifically sensible, we have to allow our definition of search engine optimization to encompass or embrace all of the objectives that search engine optimizers set out to achieve by creating unnatural content for search engine algorithms.

At its most fundamental level, any search engine optimization campaign consists of three parts: the content you create, the information you provide to the search engine, and the content you associate with. Even 10 years ago search engine spammers had to associate their doorway pages with destinations. Even people who stuff keywords into hidden text associate their pages with contextually irrelevant queries.

The context of a Web page is defined by what a normal visitor perceives, what you show to real people who load your page. Hidden text is outside the context of your page. Cloaked text (served only to search engines) is outside the context of your page. Inbound link anchor text is outside the context of your page.

We can therefore say that an optimization strategy is independent of the context of a Web page because optimization strategies can be applied either only through the context of the page, outside the context of the page, or both through the context and outside of it.

Knowing that our optimization strategy is not dependent upon a page context tells us that search engine optimization is not about creating content. That is, content is created for its own purpose. It is not created for search engine optimization (because the search engine optimization is not dependent upon the content).

That might seem confusing to people, but let us say that optimization is implemented by organizing or structuring content and or by organizing or structuring stuff outside the content. Hence, search engine optimization is not based in content.

It follows that a semantic approach to search engine algorithm design must produce only natural results. Why? Because you cannot optimize for semantic search, which is dependent entirely upon the context of the Web page. In other words, search engine optimization is not concerned with page context and semantic search is.

However, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of semantic optimization (which has not yet been developed). Rather, search engine optimization is not semantic in nature and therefore cannot influence semantic search results.

Search engine optimization focuses on altering natural search engine results by manipulating contextual or extracontextual information. In other words, search engine optimization acts with both knowledge of search engine algorithms and awareness of search engine algorithms.

Search engine optimization can be implemented through minimal scope and therefore we can say that search engine optimization is not elastic. That is, search engine optimization does not have to adapt to changes in search engine algorithms.

To a certain extent, that is entirely true. It’s always a good idea to include your keywords in title elements. Why? Because search engine algorithms deem titles to be important to their indexing and ranking processes.

Since most optimized search results are influenced by multiple optimization strategies, we can say that unnatural search engine results tend to be influenced by complex scope. That is, more than one partisan is actively seeking to influence search engine results.

We can bring all these points together to suggest two things: First, there is only blind scope in natural search results; second, there is a direct correlation between the variance of unnatural/natural search results and the scope of search engine optimization. Complex limited scope distorts the natural search results more than complex minimal scope.

In other words, the theorem of search engine optimization says that achieving optimal performance from search engine results diminishes the naturality of search results.

Now, while it may seem like I just indicted the entire SEO community, nothing could be farther from the truth. I should point out that search engines — by implementing filters, penalties, bans, and boosts — constantly seek to optimize their search results.

Hence, we long ago left the realm of “natural search results” simply because the search engines don’t rely entirely upon their algorithms. Search engines optimize their results all the time. But understanding this aspect of the search environment shows us that we have really only just begun to figure out what this thing we call “search engine optimization” really means.