Paper short abstract:

What counts as 'good' or 'bad' participation in search engine optimization (SEO)? This paper uses materials from an ethnography of SEO consultants to show how the day-to-day work of 'ethicizing' participation is not just an annoying side effect, but an integral feature of the scheme.

Paper long abstract:

What counts as 'good' and 'bad' participation in search engine optimization (SEO)? This paper draws on materials from an ethnography of SEO consultants, a growing industry of marketing professionals that help their clients rank in search engine results pages. Often frowned upon for their contested practices, SEO consultants navigate a fine and ever-shifting line between desirable participation and illegitimate manipulation. They do so in the shadow of a corporation with a seemingly clear idea of what counts as a 'good webmaster' or 'quality content'. In practice, however, these determinations are subject to constant challenge and ambivalence. In this paper, I shall trace how various practices of 'ethicizing' shape this unofficial participation in generating rankings on the web. Moving back and forth between spreadsheets, software tools, client meetings, industry conferences, and online conversations, I shall identify a range of strategies for distinguishing the good and the evil, including denial, deferral, humor, storytelling, and the use of material objects. This ongoing respecification, I shall argue, is not just an unavoidable annoyance, but an integral feature of the scheme. Ranking the web is possible because of, rather than despite, the way participation is organized and ethicized.