When measures come to matter, those measured find themselves in a precarious situation. On the one hand, they have a strong incentive to respond to measurement so as to score a favourable rating. On the other hand, too much of an adjustment runs the risk of being flagged and penalized by system operators as an attempt to ‘game the system’. Measures, the story goes, are most useful when they depict those measured as they usually are and not how they intend to be. In this article, I explore the practices and politics of optimization in the case of web search engines. Drawing on materials from ethnographic fieldwork with search engine optimization (SEO) consultants in the United Kingdom, I show how maximizing a website’s visibility in search results involves navigating the shifting boundaries between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ optimization. Specifically, I am interested in the ethical work performed as SEO consultants artfully arrange themselves to cope with moral ambiguities provoked and delegated by the operators of the search engine. Building on studies of ethics as a practical accomplishment, I suggest that the ethicality of optimization has itself become a site of governance and contestation. Studying such practices of ‘being ethical’ not only offers opportunities for rethinking popular tropes like ‘gaming the system’, but also draws attention to often-overlooked struggles for authority at the margins of contemporary ranking schemes.
BeckerHS (1997) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
5.
BevanGHoodC (2006) What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration84(3): 517–538.
6.
BiagioliM (2016) Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature News535(7611): 201.
7.
BrinSPageL (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems30(1–7): 107–117.
8.
BruntonF (2012) Constitutive interference: Spam and online communities. Representations117(1): 30–58.
9.
CampbellDT (1957) Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin54(4): 297–312.
10.
CitronDKPasqualeFA (2014) The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review89(1): 1–33.
11.
ColemanG (2017) From internet farming to weapons of the geek. Current Anthropology58(S15): S91–S102.
12.
ConsalvoM (2007) Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13.
CouldryNYuJ (2018) Deconstructing datafication’s brave new world. New Media & Society20(12): 4473–4491.
14.
DearP (2001) Science studies as epistemography. In: LabingerJACollinsHM (eds) The One Culture? A Conversation about Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 128–141.
15.
EglashR (2004) Appropriating technology: An introduction. In: EglashRCroissantJLDi ChiroG, et al. (eds) Appropriating Technology: Vernacular Science and Social Power. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, vii–xx.
HeimerCA (2013) ‘Wicked’ ethics: Compliance work and the practice of ethics in HIV research. Social Science & Medicine98: 371–378.
30.
HoeyerKTupaselaARasmussenMB (2017) Ethics policies and ethics work in cross-national genetic research and data sharing: Flows, nonflows, and overflows. Science, Technology, & Human Values42(3): 381–404.
31.
HoskinK (1996) The ‘awful idea of accountability’: Inscribing people into the measurement of objects. In: MunroRMouritsenJ (eds) Accountability: Power, Ethos and the Technologies of Managing. London: International Thomson Business Press, 265–282.
32.
HuLImmorlicaNVaughanJW (2019) The disparate effects of strategic classification. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*), Atlanta, 29–31 January, 259–268. New York: ACM.
33.
HughesEC (1951) Mistakes at work. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science17(3): 320–327.
34.
HughesEC (1956) Social role and the division of labor. The Midwest Sociologist18(2): 3–7.
35.
IraniLDourishPMazmanianM (2010) Shopping for sharpies in Seattle: Mundane infrastructures of transnational design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–20 August, 39–48. New York: ACM.
36.
JacksonSJ (2014) Rethinking repair. In: GillespieTBoczkowskiPJFootKA (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 221–239.
37.
JacobM-A (2019) Under repair: A publication ethics and research record in the making. Social Studies of Science49(1): 77–101.
38.
JohnsonMR (2018) ‘The biggest legal battle in UK casino history’: Processes and politics of ‘cheating’ in sociotechnical networks. Social Studies of Science48(2): 304–327.
39.
JonesML (2017) The right to a human in the loop: Political constructions of computer automation and personhood. Social Studies of Science47(2): 216–239.
40.
KlineRPinchT (1996) Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture37(4): 763–795.
41.
LambekM (ed.) (2010) Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action. New York: Fordham University Press.
42.
LynchM (2001) The epistemology of epistopics: Science and technology studies as an emergent (non)discipline. American Sociological Association, Science, Knowledge & Technology Section (ASA-SKAT) Newsletter (Fall): 2–3.
43.
MagerA (2012) Algorithmic ideology: How capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 769–787.
44.
MagerA (2017) Search engine imaginary: Visions and values in the co-production of search technology and Europe. Social Studies of Science47(2): 240–262.
45.
MarresN (2009) Testing powers of engagement: Green living experiments, the ontological turn and the undoability of involvement. European Journal of Social Theory12(1): 117–133.
46.
MartinE (2006) Pharmaceutical virtue. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry30(2): 157–174.
47.
MaurerHBalkeTKappeF, et al. (2007) Report on dangers and opportunities posed by large search engines, particularly Google. Graz, Austria: Institute for Information Systems and Computer Media, Graz University of Technology, 30September.
MilliSMillerJDraganAD, et al. (2019) The social cost of strategic classification. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*), Atlanta, GA, 29–31 January, 230–239. New York: ACM.
51.
MolA (2013) Mind your plate! The ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Social Studies of Science43(3): 379–396.
52.
MoralesJLambertC (2013) Dirty work and the construction of identity: An ethnographic study of management accounting practices. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(3): 228–244.
53.
MorrisWT (1975) Toward new strategies for productivity growth. In: Proceedings of the 1975 Systems Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 35–41. Norcross, GA: American Institute of Industrial Engineers.
54.
MulkayM (1988) On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
55.
NeylandD (2016) Bearing account-able witness to the ethical algorithmic system. Science, Technology & Human Values41(1): 50–76.
56.
OrrJE (1996) Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
57.
PollockN (2005) When is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems development. Science, Technology & Human Values30(4): 496–514.
58.
PolsJ (2014) Towards an empirical ethics in care: Relations with technologies in health care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy18(1): 81–90.
59.
PowazekD (2009) Spammers, evildoers, and opportunists. Powazek. Available at: http://powazek.com/posts/2090 (accessed 7 March 2016).
60.
RasmussenN (2004) The moral economy of the drug company: Medical scientist collaboration in interwar America. Social Studies of Science34(2): 161–185.
ShoreCWrightS (2000) Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In: StrathernM (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy. London: Routledge, 57–89.
66.
SismondoS (2015) Key opinion leaders: Valuing independence and conflict of interest in the medical science. In: DussaugeIHelgessonC-FLeeF (eds) Value Practices in the Life Sciences and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–48.
67.
SmithDE (1978) ‘K is mentally ill’: The anatomy of a factual account. Sociology12(1): 23–53.
68.
StarSL (1991) Power, technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In: LawJ (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination. London: Routledge, 26–56.
ToennesenC (2007) Wormeries and iPODS: The role of mundane artefacts in ethicising organisations. In: Judge Business School Spring Doctoral Conference, Cambridge, UK, 18–19 April.
73.
ToennesenC (2009) Ethicising: Towards an understanding of ethics as material practice. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford, UK.
