We need someone who does all the niggley little things that don't normally get done.This would cover 'SEO Expert' as has been mentioned here, but millions of other little codey things that just don't get done too. I'm just not convinced it needs to be a separate job on its own.
As for the pay, I'm suggesting it will probably fall dramatically in a couple of years like all new technology jobs do once the market gets flooded with people pretending they can do it properly.
(As for the pay, I'm suggesting it will probably fall dramatically in a couple of years like all new technology jobs do once the market gets flooded with people pretending they can do it properly.
Quijibo Esq. BSc. May contain traces of nuts,
Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:19,
archived)
SEO is not really new tech.We have been doing it here for 9 years now, which is a long time in agency terms.
My point was rather less 'you need an SEO to do these things for you' and more 'you need an SEO because you think that these things are worthwhile'.
(My point was rather less 'you need an SEO to do these things for you' and more 'you need an SEO because you think that these things are worthwhile'.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Tue 22 Jun 2010, 17:16,
archived)
Ah right, fair enough.We could do with a general web lackey though (who's permanently doing the bits no one else wants/has time to do) and taking the "SEO Expert" title away from the guy who's currently got it.
( Quijibo Esq. BSc. May contain traces of nuts,
Tue 22 Jun 2010, 21:03,
archived)
Often this is the case.I am being glib, of course, and almost everything that you need to know to be a good SEO is available through a mixture of common sense and Google.
If you are a small business then you are best off doing it yourself, but if you are a corporation or an SME then it is not unreasonable to pay an agency, rather than paying someone in house, since the cost is a hard one, the expertise is instantly available (as it the experience of starting new campaigns and with a variety of platforms and sites) and relationships exist already.
In the long term the ideal is to have someone heading up the site who has a broad understanding of all disciplines, but any large CMS comes with its own problems and short of having an entirely bespoke solution these will have to be navigated.
(If you are a small business then you are best off doing it yourself, but if you are a corporation or an SME then it is not unreasonable to pay an agency, rather than paying someone in house, since the cost is a hard one, the expertise is instantly available (as it the experience of starting new campaigns and with a variety of platforms and sites) and relationships exist already.
In the long term the ideal is to have someone heading up the site who has a broad understanding of all disciplines, but any large CMS comes with its own problems and short of having an entirely bespoke solution these will have to be navigated.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Tue 22 Jun 2010, 21:24,
archived)
"If you are a small business then you are best off doing it yourself"Do you think this is what smaller companies should be telling their clients, rather than pushing for a monthly fee (which can often cost more than their website)?
(
monkeon schmonkeon,
Tue 22 Jun 2010, 22:06,
archived)
I qualify out more work than I acceptand I often pass on this sort of advice, or recommend smaller agencies (http://www.puresystems.co.uk/ for example) so yes, you are right.
Of course it does depend on the size of the work, the dependency on web and the abilities of the individuals available - if you have to hire someone to do the work then we are back in small agency territory again.
The aim of any engagement is to provide the best solution for a client - sometimes that is micro managing their campaigns, but on the flip side even some larger clients (particularly within traditional press) only really require a technical review, with recommendations and some training.
(Of course it does depend on the size of the work, the dependency on web and the abilities of the individuals available - if you have to hire someone to do the work then we are back in small agency territory again.
The aim of any engagement is to provide the best solution for a client - sometimes that is micro managing their campaigns, but on the flip side even some larger clients (particularly within traditional press) only really require a technical review, with recommendations and some training.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 23 Jun 2010, 9:12,
archived)
What's the main differencein skill set required by a client you think needs an expert and one you think just needs some training?
Also, with so many inconsistent variables to consider, do SEOs you trust actually do proper testing, or are the ones that say they do just bullshitting to people? I'd have thought that an SEO who is aware of the impossibility of testing and admits to working on likely theory is far more knowledgeable than someone who claims to do tests, or even does tests which I cannot see have scientific value.
(Also, with so many inconsistent variables to consider, do SEOs you trust actually do proper testing, or are the ones that say they do just bullshitting to people? I'd have thought that an SEO who is aware of the impossibility of testing and admits to working on likely theory is far more knowledgeable than someone who claims to do tests, or even does tests which I cannot see have scientific value.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Wed 23 Jun 2010, 10:04,
archived)
Oh, there are some tests which are valid.The results may be short term and one can never prove a negative, but there are valid experiments.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 23 Jun 2010, 11:01,
archived)
Please give an example of a valid experiment.I really can't imagine one.
( monkeon schmonkeon,
Wed 23 Jun 2010, 14:28,
archived)
Okay, really basic stuff and not real example, but:I want to know if a Search Engine follows plain text links, so I write www.somesite.co.uk/manleys-new-test/ and then I link to that page once with a plain text link from an unused but indexed page.
After that I know if it does.
Of course I can never know if it doesn't.
(After that I know if it does.
Of course I can never know if it doesn't.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jun 2010, 10:44,
archived)
I'm sure you're going to say "bad seo"but so many companies claim to test all of the small theories as part of their skill base.
eg testing for keyword density
There are so many variables to keep constant that I think it would be impossible to prove anything about this from any test.
Your test makes sense for the job, but when I worked for a company whose SEO team who passed all their work onto the developers, we were never once asked to build any sort of testing sites or tools. I'm sure the root of my cynicism comes down to that!
Ultimately, I'd have thought that an expert would know the limits of what is testable, though I suspect many SEOs get work by saying "we know this through testing...", rather than "no one can know this but it makes logical sense in theory because..."
(eg testing for keyword density
There are so many variables to keep constant that I think it would be impossible to prove anything about this from any test.
Your test makes sense for the job, but when I worked for a company whose SEO team who passed all their work onto the developers, we were never once asked to build any sort of testing sites or tools. I'm sure the root of my cynicism comes down to that!
Ultimately, I'd have thought that an expert would know the limits of what is testable, though I suspect many SEOs get work by saying "we know this through testing...", rather than "no one can know this but it makes logical sense in theory because..."
monkeon schmonkeon,
Fri 25 Jun 2010, 17:32,
archived)