In 1748, the Scottish philosopher David Hume published a work that contained a dilemma that remains highly influential to this day. Hume’s “problem of induction” demonstrated that we cannot definitively prove through reason alone that the future will resemble the past.
While this may seem like an abstract philosophical idle thought, it has striking parallels to the challenges we face in SEO.
At its core, SEO is about optimizing websites and content to rank higher in search engine results. On its face, it should be pretty straightforward to do this, at least mechanistically.
However, search engines are constantly updating their ranking algorithms to keep up with the demands of searchers (and to keep up with people like us who want to figure out the mechanisms behind ranking). An SEO tactic that may have worked last year (or last week) could be ineffective or even detrimental now.
Furthermore, the precise factors and their weighted importance in these algorithms are obfuscated as proprietary “black boxes.” This ever-shifting landscape makes it impossible to definitively prove through pure reason or logic which SEO practices will work in the future.
Many SEO professionals and companies attempt to reverse-engineer ranking factors through analyzing correlations in data. “Sites with these characteristics tend to rank higher, so we should pursue those characteristics,” they conclude.
But as Hume teaches us, such inductive reasoning — making predictions about the future based on past observations — commits a circular fallacy.
The assumption baked into inductive arguments is that the future will, in fact, resemble the past. When it comes to SEO, with algorithms constantly shifting, that’s an unfounded assumption.
In addition to that problem (insurmountable already), we have the truism that the algorithms are being corrupted as we speak and constantly. The very effort to manipulate a search engine result by understanding and optimizing specific ranking factors often prompts search engines to change the rules of the game. It is a cyclical process in which SEO practitioners and search engine algorithms are in a constant dance of adaptation. Goodheart’s law in action.
As a result, we can’t honestly claim that we conclusively know anything at all about the mechanism of why some document ranks well today when it wasn’t ranking well yesterday.
This inductive trap leads many SEOs down a perpetual cycle of chasing the latest algorithm update to try to “game” the system and obtain higher rankings through exploiting the newest tilted playing field.
However, at their core, algorithm updates by search engines attempt to better measure quality content and user satisfaction—at least in theory, lets not be naive about the profit-driven motives behind the entire endeavor of public search engines.
Proven best practices around producing valuable, engaging content and providing an outstanding user experience are thus more reliable long-term signals than any individual technical SEO tactic.
Moreover, the practice of chasing algorithms tends to prioritize technical manipulation over genuine value creation.
While technical SEO is undoubtedly important, overemphasizing quick hacks and tricks to game the system can lead to neglecting the core purpose of search engines: to connect users with content that is most relevant and valuable to them.
In that sense, in-depth case studies are a far more useful resource than pure correlational data (of which there is plenty).
What then? We should resign ourselves to not doing SEO because we can’t conclusively prove that a keyword ought to appear in an h1 element on a page?
Certainly not. There would be no point in SEO as we know it. After all, we can’t prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I’d be happy to wager my career (and yours, dear reader) on it happening.
As Hume concluded, since we cannot find certainty through reason alone, we must rely on sentiment or “feeling” to guide our beliefs and actions about the future.
For SEOs, these “feelings” are born from analytics data on user behavior, research into user experience best practices, and market feedback on what users find valuable. While not definitively provable, these represent more “reasonable” guides than endlessly chasing the latest algorithmic factors that cannot be accounted for through pure logic.
Therefore, our goal ought not to be to increase our returns by removing competition (ranking higher). Instead, our goal should be to provide the best value to a visitor and hope that our site serves searchers in the best way. That will, in theory at least, set us up for growth better than any other SEO tool or optimization.
And, of course, a backlink here and there always helps. Let’s not get carried away.
The future of SEO, then, is not to be found in the relentless pursuit of algorithmic approval, but in the steadfast commitment to delivering value to the user. As technology advances, with artificial intelligence and machine learning becoming increasingly sophisticated, the complexity of search algorithms will grow.
Yet, this should not deter us or concern us; rather, it should guide us toward more authentic engagement with our audience. The essence of SEO in this evolving landscape will hinge on understanding and responding to user needs, preferences, and behaviors, crafting content that resonates on a human level.
