'It seems to me that you consider that to mean that what I do is therefore worth less and I'm not sure you're ever going to be convinced otherwise.'
I don't know what you do - you rarely give examples. If you can point to work which is as skilled as the work Milt seems to do, fair enough.
If, however, you cannot, then my original point stands that the skill base is very small.
I have conceded loads of points to Milt - so I am able to be convinced by a convincing argument. You seem to just fall into the logical traps of Special Pleading and Straw Men.
(I don't know what you do - you rarely give examples. If you can point to work which is as skilled as the work Milt seems to do, fair enough.
If, however, you cannot, then my original point stands that the skill base is very small.
I have conceded loads of points to Milt - so I am able to be convinced by a convincing argument. You seem to just fall into the logical traps of Special Pleading and Straw Men.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 13:45,
archived)
Okay I have a question for you.
How do you think you'd do, working as an SEO? Do you think your current knowledge and skill base covers everything?
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:10,
archived)
How do you think you'd do, working as an SEO? Do you think your current knowledge and skill base covers everything?
I'm scared off by the link building side.If I wasn't, then I do believe my knowledge and skill base covers everything (in your definition of an SEO, not Milt's)
I have read books on SEO as that is how I would learn a new development skill. If you don't think this is enough, what are the available books missing?
The fact that the books are so sparse on knowledge in an area which has existed for ten years suggests to me that there is not much more to learn.
(I have read books on SEO as that is how I would learn a new development skill. If you don't think this is enough, what are the available books missing?
The fact that the books are so sparse on knowledge in an area which has existed for ten years suggests to me that there is not much more to learn.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 14:44,
archived)
And when you consider that, at the end of the day, an SEO (or at least the amount they're worth paying) is judged by the rankings he or she has achieved and maintained in the past, what level do you think you'd enter at?
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:07,
archived)
As I mentioned earlierI believe it should be performance related pay if it is going to be judged on rankings alone.
You know the industry better than me, so what skills do you think I'd be lacking from books and blog research?
I'm not arguing that I am better at SEO than you, or that you don't get results. I'm sure you do. I'm just interested that people seem to suggest there is a big skill base in the monthly cost side of it, then not pointing me towards what any of these skills lie.
If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?
(You know the industry better than me, so what skills do you think I'd be lacking from books and blog research?
I'm not arguing that I am better at SEO than you, or that you don't get results. I'm sure you do. I'm just interested that people seem to suggest there is a big skill base in the monthly cost side of it, then not pointing me towards what any of these skills lie.
If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?
monkeon schmonkeon,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 15:41,
archived)
"You know the industry better than me, so what skills do you think I'd be lacking from books and blog research?"
I can only go from the work I can see from your site, and really I think all you're lacking really is experience. There's some rooky errors going on that won't effect the site's performance all that much but kind of explain why very few of them have particularly good rankings right now.
I know you weren't arguing who's best, and that wasn't my intention, I just wanted you to think about why your sites aren't ranking when other sites, most likely handled at sometime or another by someone who calls themselves an "SEO", are ranking well. Could it be that they're doing something you aren't? And wouldn't the know how to do that be worth paying good money for? I think so. The problem comes when you get people selling the service without the know how to back it up, which leads us on to...
"If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?"
That's a really good question. I'd consider the following...
- do they offer any guarantees, and on what basis? if it sounds to good to be true, it is
- they should discuss with you the keyword targets / target group rather than dictate what they're going to be
- watch out for phrases like "ranked in 48hrs" or "we'll submit you to 1000 search engines"
- ask them about their techniques... if i was talking to you in person i'd be much less cagey than i am being on this here public bulletin board, and any decent SEO will be happy to talk you through what they'd do
- can they take the work away? i worked for a company once that would actually reinstate the non-optimised version of your site if you stopped paying the monthly fee! Fuck THAT for a bag of chips - i didn't stay for long.
- ask to see work and rankings for existing clients... again, they'll be less cagey in person and if they refuse to show you anything then it's probably not a good sign
(,
Thu 24 Jun 2010, 16:36,
archived)
I can only go from the work I can see from your site, and really I think all you're lacking really is experience. There's some rooky errors going on that won't effect the site's performance all that much but kind of explain why very few of them have particularly good rankings right now.
I know you weren't arguing who's best, and that wasn't my intention, I just wanted you to think about why your sites aren't ranking when other sites, most likely handled at sometime or another by someone who calls themselves an "SEO", are ranking well. Could it be that they're doing something you aren't? And wouldn't the know how to do that be worth paying good money for? I think so. The problem comes when you get people selling the service without the know how to back it up, which leads us on to...
"If I had you and someone else come in and pitch to me, and the other person was a fraud, what questions should I be asking to tell you apart?"
That's a really good question. I'd consider the following...
- do they offer any guarantees, and on what basis? if it sounds to good to be true, it is
- they should discuss with you the keyword targets / target group rather than dictate what they're going to be
- watch out for phrases like "ranked in 48hrs" or "we'll submit you to 1000 search engines"
- ask them about their techniques... if i was talking to you in person i'd be much less cagey than i am being on this here public bulletin board, and any decent SEO will be happy to talk you through what they'd do
- can they take the work away? i worked for a company once that would actually reinstate the non-optimised version of your site if you stopped paying the monthly fee! Fuck THAT for a bag of chips - i didn't stay for long.
- ask to see work and rankings for existing clients... again, they'll be less cagey in person and if they refuse to show you anything then it's probably not a good sign