How so?
Without SEO, the sites that would rank "organically" would rank organically.
i.e. They wouldn't rank because they've tricked google into thinking other sites were giving them authority... instead, they'd rank because other sites were giving them authority.
Not selling them links. Not part of some link network, but genuinely and unilaterally endorsing the sites they were linking to.
How would that produce worse search engine results?
Correct Steve, but your not taking my post in it's entirety.
Google needs the SERPS to place their ads around it and their other properties within it to make money.
Without decent SERPS then people will go else where.
Google wants SEO's to help build sites that are properly structured and formatted to help their algos decide which sites are better than the rest. It also helps massively on their computing power which saves them money, why else is there signals like site speed?
So technically SEO's are Google's army helping them to create sites that are designed for Google's way of working.
That's why people say SEO's should be used when building sites, even Google -
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35291
If you're thinking about hiring an SEO, the earlier the better. A great time to hire is when you're considering a site redesign, or planning to launch a new site. That way, you and your SEO can ensure that your site is designed to be search engine-friendly from the bottom up.
This is why SEO's are needed for Google existence, not to build link as you have stated, but to create sites that works to their advantage.
Building them dishonestly. Trying to trick google into thinking a link is a vote when it very rarely is one.
Again, you have selectively quoted me and not taken the rest of what I said into context.
You don't have to do it the way you suggested, as I've stated, you can do it the way Google wants you to do it, but there is only a few who can do it, resulting in the rest either doing nothing or to find another way.
That very statement undermines your claim that google needs SEO. Yes, there are people earning links with quality content... but very few SEOs work that way.
Instead, it's deception.
It's sites that aren't good enough to be worth linking to, finding other (insincere) ways to get links.
I'm not here to moralise. The game is the game.
But let's not pretend that the relationship between Google and SEO is win-win. It's more "gamekeeper-poacher".
Never said it was a win win, but I like your analogy
Unfortunately deception is a by product from it's main offsite ranking factor, and Google is in a constant battle, moving the goal posts to confuse everyone.
But lets not forget that Google has an obligation to it's shareholders, and what ever they do will be in their interest.
SEO, the "link building" part, was becoming more accessible to everyone. People were realising that they could pay a monthly fee and get good ROI. This effectively was pulling people away from their cash cow, Adwords.
By taking action on the blog networks recently e.g. BMR, ALN etc and pretty much wiping them out, they have just create panic and uncertainty in an industry full of wannabe SEO making a killing.
As there are sites dropping in ranks, SEO's are closing shop, and generally the cost is increasing, this, makes using their adwords system a much better option now.
Something that should be in your favour
