Facebook's alleged declaration of war on Google and the talk about the the "link" being replaced by the "like" as the new search paradigm got me thinking about search engine optimization and the future of search engines.

I have to say that I never quite liked search engine optimization because it always seemed to be so much more about doing things for the robot instead of for the human. I think that providing real value to users and the overall user experience are ultimately all that matters. Everything that falls short of that seems superfluous.

When I write I prefer to write from my gut, to write directly to the reader, without getting side tracked by such concerns as whether I'm using the right key words in the right amounts. I want my content to stand on its own regardless of how many links I coax out of other publishers or sneak into their comment streams. If it's going to become popular it is going to be solely because what I say actually speaks to people, and they, the readers, are going to be the ones giving me all the "link juice" I need.

Some people speak of writing good content as a SEO tactic, which I suppose it is, but an interesting thing to note about it is that it never was designed to be a SEO tactic. Since when is providing value to customers a "tactic" to get something as dry and cold as a "link" out of them? It's akin to being in business solely to get as much money out of people as possible instead of actually wanting to provide value and make a difference. Ideally, a business should be a synergy of both.The Future of Search

Unfortunately, I also realize that in a world as it is right now, search engines the way they are have spawned a competitive marketplace in which, for a long time now, just offering the best content isn't enough. All bets are off and all would be rules of conduct are broken when it comes to a hardcore SEO "expert" getting that next link to his page.

The term "blackhat" has even gotten an aura of relative legitimacy despite the fact that it often involves spam attacks. I could write terms of use for my site which explicitly prohibit unauthorized advertisements and have those rules shamelessly broken by a "fellow" web publisher from some webmaster forum. I've even seen the term "spamming" used in contexts which appear to legitimize the practice as perfectly acceptable despite the fact that it typically involves violation of property rights or fraud.

It is no wonder then that most of the Internet traffic is spam. This situation creates an environment in which you cannot prosper if you don't at least to some extent participate in this game.

Search engines are evolving, however, and since it is their business to come up with most compelling search results which are a reflection of true value or as close as a search engine can get to it, they are becoming more and more hostile to superfluous "optimization" and friendly towards focusing on compelling content instead.

A good search technology is one which cannot be gamed, and one which will not reward those who spend time on anything other than creating and maintaining a good user experience. In other words, a good search engine is one you cannot optimize for, or rather optimizing for it is virtually indistinguishable from optimizing for the human being.

This is why I find the "like" paradigm so interesting. To "like" something is to say quite directly and explicitly that you find it valuable. It's hard to imagine a more direct way of measuring how valuable your content actually is. "Liking" is also a tool of value expression that is available to pretty much everyone rather than just publishers who know how to make a hyperlink or use a tool that does. It is far more accessible to a far greater number of people, all of which now have a say, and all they have to do is click a button.

Of course, it's not perfect, although nothing is. As sites like digg shown just setting up a system based on likes isn't a guarantee that truly the most valuable content will come on top. Votes can be bought and sold, and the result is one you cannot trust to reflect what most people found truly valuable. But this is a challenge that has to be overcome.

Perhaps the best way to overcome the dilution as a result of buying and selling of "likes" is to incorporate this market dynamic into the search equation rather than fighting it. Or perhaps the answer is decentralization where not a single site serves as the window into the world of valuable content, but multiple sites can provide such access, sort of the way peer to peer networks work.

In any case a move to "likes" instead of links is an intriguing possibility, and one I hope could bring us closer to the destination; a world in which only that which provides truly the most value and the best user experience to most people is what comes out on top, not that which has been most optimized for a particular algorithm.