(... not late for dinner.... no)
... I look at the "updated-algorhythm"-'alerts' and think, "So?"
I mean, I understand how ad-people on the web might regard as "gold" a high ranking on Google, on Yahoo, on Ask Jeeves, (on Dancer, on Prancer ... I realize that those first three [or any combo thereof] may even be all the same company, but those last two ... ho ho ho.)
The point is that the companies' advertisers' actions should not weigh upon the search-engine methods any more than those methods affect the people's views of the company's actions, or the company's reaction to the people's reviews. (On the other hand, the search-engines probably review the people's views-and-reviews, thus making their algorhythm into a reflection of those views-and-reviews. So the
SEO-er makes sure that the company seems to be doing [as the people demand] what it actually should be doing.)
I suppose it's the conservatism in me that sees how
SEO—if it actually operates the way I said it does—is
wrong. (Not that being
wrong is ever gonna stop it.) the conservativism that thinks that "ever'thang uhll be alright ef ever'body jus' stays de sayme." the conservativism that thinks the view of every company should never be any different except as necessitated by tectonic-shift. the conservativism that thinks an "algorhythm" is how you know when to enter the restroom; I need to review some of this new-fangled Internet terminology, {a-hyuck}.
--------------------------
I'd appreciate any replies; I'm having a little trouble upgrading my brain into this decade's model (lol).