Note: the following was written by a guest contributor – and while the views may very likely align with our own, we’re too chickenshit to say so, so we’re putting this warning here that the views expressed yada yada – editor.
By now, every SEO still actively trying to ruin the internet has read Amanda Chicago Lewis’ hit piece on The Verge. Her second name, Chicago, is America’s “Second City” and may indicate the total time she took to question her initial premise before publishing her article: one second.
It is therefore obligatory that we at WTFSEO chime in with our rebuttal to her article. However, since it’s an 8000-word article and I’m lazy AF, I’ll cherry pick some random statements from her piece and respond in the same way she cherry-picked her material.
“Who the hell are these people making money off of everyone else’s misery?”
I too wonder, as I’m miserably typing my queries into Google, “Who are these people ranking for my sad, defeatist questions?” But I never really look it up, because, well, my vision is blurred by my tears as I try to find answers to my original query. I just can’t bring myself to do any more searching lest I type one too many queries, and my misery turns into a full-blown psychiatric crisis.
“Perhaps this is why nearly everyone hates SEO and the people who do it for a living…”
I know, right? Every time I tell someone that I’m an SEO, they immediately know what that term means and exactly what I do for a living. And, boy howdy, do they hate me for it. As you say, it’s nearly everyone!
“It was an unsettling vision, a predator pretending to be just another party guest.”
…but enough about Donald Trump at a Jeffrey Epstein party.
“…have I even mentioned that they call themselves “SEOs”? Really.”
She’s onto us, folks! Time to change our titles to something that doesn’t include “search” or “engine” or “optimization.”
“The existence of good SEOs does not negate the presence of scammers and idiots…”
Preach it, sister. The existence of charitable, selfless human saints does not negate the existence of serial killers, rapists, and politicians either. The nihilistic content goblin inside of me thinks this is a good reason to end all of humanity and our search engine-querying misery forever.
“[Duane] Forrester has a holistic understanding of the delicate push and pull…”
… TMI Duane. TMI.
“The problem was not Google. The problem was not SEOs. The problem was kids these days.”
To be fair, kids are the worst. Seriously. The. Worst.
“Had I been researching a nonexistent problem? Were Google results actually amazing?”
Yes? However, admittedly, I haven’t queried “how to be a journalist” lately, so I can’t speak to the results you found when you did.
“But now we see this stuff surfacing alongside truth, and we can’t tell the difference.”
Are you talking about SEO or the vitamin aisle at Whole Foods?
Conclusion
Seriously though, I didn’t get the point of your article. You hate us, but you like us. We’re bad, but maybe things aren’t so bad. We make you uncomfortable, but you want to hang out with us anyway. This all sounds far too much like my dating life to be comfortable with it. Do we know each other?
I think my biggest complaint about your article is that you waited so long to publish it. I could’ve gone as a content goblin for Halloween this year, but no. You ruined that opportunity just like I ruined the Internet. So, as they say, “Touché.”
