There’s nothing quite as curious as the spectacle of two SEO professionals debating the right way to structure headings on a page. To an outsider, that might seem like a painfully pedantic discussion which is, above all, not very fruitful.
But, within the circles of digital marketing and search engine optimization, it’s sometimes approached with a fervor rivaling that of the GIF vs. GIF debate.
This type of approach is evident in other fields as well, particularly in academia and politics, where minutiae often overshadow larger issues. Debates about the ‘right’ way can become consuming, leading to stagnation and a lack of productive dialogue.
This could be perceived as the narcissism of small differences in action – focusing on minor disagreements and losing sight of common goals. SEO, like any other industry, is vulnerable to this kind of discourse.
This fixation, while rooted in the genuine complexities of search engine algorithms, often devolves into a counter-productive tug-of-war. Instead of fostering collaboration and shared learning, the SEO community can sometimes collapse into bitter disputes over minor methodological differences. The end result? A mutual paralysis that does little to advance the field.
So how did we get here?
It all started with an honest desire from honest people to master the field of SEO. The constant algorithm updates led to differing interpretations and approaches.
That was inevitable, given that SEO is (generally speaking) a discipline of claims rather than facts.
Eventually, these differences in approach and interpretation were magnified, causing rifts in the community.
Instead of uniting to decode the complexity of SEO, professionals started building fortresses around their ideologies. The tragedy is that two SEOs, or two groups of SEOs, can agree about 98% of the things that make up good SEO and still think that they are on completely opposite sides of the fence.
In addition, so many SEOs are convinced that they do things differently from most others, and that difference is precisely why they are more successful.
In reality, just about all SEO (that works) boils down to the same basic principles. And there isn’t any disagreement about what those principles are, but rather about which minuscule factor takes precedence over another.
As these ideological fortresses grew taller, they also grew more insular, creating echo chambers that amplified the importance of minor differences while muting the vast commonalities.
Within these walls, an SEO professional’s worth became tied not just to their success in optimizing websites but to their allegiance to specific strategies, tools, or theories. The echo chamber intensified the belief in the uniqueness of one’s approach, further entrenching divisions.
This phenomenon isn’t unique to SEO; it’s a social dynamic found in many fields where people gather—virtual or otherwise.
However, in the context of SEO, where the landscape changes with every algorithm update from Google, these echo chambers can become particularly isolating.
They not only hinder the flow of shared knowledge and innovation but also create a culture of “us vs. them” that sees deviation not as a potential for growth but as a threat to the established order.
Picture this: two seasoned SEO consultants locked in a fierce debate over the ideal H1 heading structure.
Hours are lost, passions inflamed, all over a seemingly minor difference that may yield negligible real-world results. This obsession with the insignificant is the hallmark of a field caught in its own feedback loop.
This pursuit, while rooted in the desire for recognition and success, leads to an overemphasis on the minor technicalities—elevating them beyond their actual impact on overall strategy.
It’s a symptom of a very commoditized marketplace where the illusion of some nuanced advantage is construed as a game-changing differentiation. This can lead to a warped sense of priorities and an unhealthy fixation on marginal technical elements, detracting from the broader perspective essential for strategic success of a project.
In such a field, it’s no surprise that there’s a hunger for differentiation by any means necessary. Unfortunately, inflating the importance of these technicalities does little to make use better at the work of SEO.
Another completely understandable driver of this tendency is that search engines are, in fact, constantly changing. That kind of volatility naturally leads to a fear that not changing constantly is the equivalent of failure.
But if that were the case, there wouldn’t be so much content out there that is rewarded by search engines despite not having changed in many years.
Lastly, we all want to (at heart) feel like our strategies work. Nothing makes us blind to contradicting evidence like the desire to be right.
The constant nitpicking over minor details can have significant consequences. It not only creates unnecessary tension within the SEO community, but it also diverts attention away from the larger, more critical aspects of SEO.
This excessive focus on minuscule elements can lead to the overlooking of significant SEO strategies that could potentially lead to greater traffic and conversions.
Additionally, the time and energy spent arguing over negligible differences could be better utilized in developing innovative approaches and exploring new SEO opportunities.
And maybe worst of all, it hinders collaboration.
Potential breakthroughs in SEO methodology are often missed due to the divisive nature of these trivial battles.
The lack of cooperation and shared learning results in stagnation rather than the advancement of the field.
Instead of building on each other’s knowledge and success, SEO professionals find themselves locked in constant debates over minor details.
These disputes create an environment where creativity and innovation are stifled, and where progress is often measured by the ability to win arguments rather than the ability to improve results.
Instead of obsessing over insignificant details, here’s a proposed path to making the entire field of SEO a little better both for SEO practitioners and for people who need our services:
The narcissism of small differences within SEO is a self-inflicted wound.
Could we start shifting the focus from petty rivalries to shared principles and a client-centric mindset? Could that start to elevate the SEO profession?
Ultimately the question is: are we ready to trade our obsession with minutiae for a genuine understanding of search and a commitment to serving our clients better?
