daily shots of a hormone produced by pregnant women called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG)." But the question of whether it works or not has raised a lot of questions about the "diet." While hCG proponents claim to lose up to 30 pounds in a single month, those results aren't unexpected on such a restricted diet. One variation of the hCG diet, involving homeopathic supplements, has reportedly been dismissed as illegal and fraudulent by the FDA. Elizabeth Miller, who leads the agency's Internet and health fraud team, tells USA Today that even if not dangerous, the products are, at minimum, "economic fraud." From Dr. Oz's Website: What about the hCG injections -- doesn't that make the diet more effective? No. Promoters of the hCG diet claim that when people are injected with hCG hormone they don't feel hungry even though they're not eating. The idea of using hCG injections to categy of how to give it to them. In marketing it is crucial to understand the customer's needs. In SEO, it is important to understand both the customer and the middleman that mediates what the customer will be shown. That middleman, the search engine, acts a bit like the producer at a night club, picking acts based on what his customer wants. He determines what the audience sees. In our example, the owner of the club is Google and the producer is the Google algorithm. The person doing the search is in the audience inside the club. The producer picks the show, the audience only can choose the club, thus picking the show indirectly. How? The audience, the searcher, knows what they want and always has the option to go to another club if they aren't satisfied. Just as when you search Google, you always have the option to go to Yahoo or Bing. Like the club owner, Google gets its revenue from people attending the show. Those are the searchers getting what they want in the easiest way and in the best form possible. Scientific approaches to SEO often miss the point that Google, like the club owner, is motivated to provide the most valuable information possible, because if they don't they lose the audience and all the ad revenue generated from that audience clicking on those Google Adwords. If the audience in the club were scientific about the shows, they might ask for shows of an exact length, ones where everyone wears red, where the song titles all have three words, where the lighting is intense, and the sound track has a certain number of instruments. But, we all know that isn't how a good act is put together. A good act depends on intuition, feeling, skill, experience, and knowledge. Those are not just rules and steps read from a book. The Google algorithm is said to comprise hundreds of criteria, and we have to guess what many are because Google doesn't want us to game the system. I can tell you that it is a constantly improving attempt to evaluate web pages by formula in the hope of providing the most valuable results to the searcher. It simply wants to give you what it thinks you want: quality results. Why might a scientific approach miss the point? Because it is nearly impossible to model the Google algorithm in a set of instructions to humans, especially when we are guessing as to the content of the algorithm. And a scientific approach has no way to quantify something as abstract (artistic, if you will) as "the most valuable information possible." It can only make assumptions based on what it reads. Notice that I didn't say it wanted to give you sites with five word title tags, or a specific number of words or headlines. It sniffs out what it thinks is the highest quality information, even depending on rumor and innuendo from blogs and links. But quality in this context is not the quality of content that your English teacher demanded. It is quality as might be determined by a machine that can't understand your thinking, only your presentation and words. It can detect poor writing and grades you like a grammar teacher. Google pretty much likes what I like when it comes to packaged information and uses a similar method of selection. I pick up books to look at based on their title. I go into bookstores based on their stores reputation. I scan the table of contents in books and the headlines of articles before I decide to read them. I can determine instantly whether the book or article I am holding