Best SEO Firms

[edbarton]

Originally Posted by Emancipator

I am just a lowly webdev

lol

[Emancipator]

[edbarton]

If it makes you feel better I don't think you are lowly.

[Cibok]

<Admin Edit - Spam>

Uh, Who's editing my stuff?
I thought he wanted to know the best seo firms ..
(hahah)

[Daminc]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Daminc, you shouldn't take strong talk at Jill Whalen as strong talk at yourself.

However, you were pretty directly abusive in the post I edited.

I get a bit irate when people are attacked when they are not there to defend themselves. I expected you to edit the last bit but not the whole post. One thing in my favour though, at least I did it to his face.

Anyway, again I apologise. However, you edited me (rightly) and not him. I wish you all every success for the future but I wouldn't feel right participating in this forum ran by such a guy. So I'm of now. Thanks for the conversation.

[sem4u]

Hmmmm http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/foru...136#post137136

[Bernard]

Hi folks. I wrote the information published on seo-help.com

It certainly embodies my opinions and I was careful to couch them such as not to make absolute statements of fact. I wrote the content of that site as a hobby to provide a starting point for business owners who are just discovering SEO/SEM. It helps to understand the text when keeping the target audience in mind (and not read it just from your perspective).

John, your "rebuttal" to my page is curious.

On the subject of guaranteed rankings, you responded, "Bull." Do you maintain that there is no need for caution when evaluating potential SEOs/SEMs that tout guarantees? Do you maintain that guarantees are not being used by some firms/individuals deceptively? Do you maintain that no one has ever been scammed by companies offering guarantees?

I stand by my warning. I have seen enough public "I was scammed" stories to know that the non-savvy should be cautious when evaluating these guarantees.

On the subject of non-modifications of page content being a red flag, you responded "LOL.". Do you maintain that there do not exist companies that generate content/links from pages hosted on their own domains and which pull them the moment the client stops paying recurring fees, leaving the former clients back at square one? Do you consider this organic SEO?

I think there are enough public cases out there to justify my warning.

On the subject of what to look for, I offered the rationale for each point on the page. If you choose to ignore them while offering counterpoints out of context (or off topic), then there is no point in discussing the issue.

I appreciate that not every high quality consultant or firm will meet every criteria that I or anyone else define. That was not the point. The point was to warn people to be cautious because, unfortunately, this industry is indeed full of scam artists.

Hi Brian! Please expound upon how my view of SEO is extremely narrow. I would also like to see where I implied that "content SEO is all that SEO should be about." I suppose you did not read where I discuss link building in the (basic) tutorial? You might find more on my position on the matter here:

http://forums.seochat.com/t8362/s.html

[Brian]

Welcome, Bernard.

[I, Brian]

Emancipator, we don't have a disagreement - excepting on semantics.

Daminc, it would actually be a shame for you to go, in that we all get heated from time to time.

Heck, more than once I've had an argument with site Mods or Admins, only to later become a much more constructive member. Happened at SitePoint, and it's happened here.

Hi Bernard, and welcome also.

Ah - it took some time - if you'd have posted your avatar a litle more around here I might have recognised you better.

One of the problems with your article is that in places it is far too general, and criticises certain practices too inclusively, without making a distinction of where the respectable boundaries are.

For example, there is indeed some horrible glib marketing that "guarrantees top rankings". However, Professional SEO's have to offer some form of guarantee to justify their fee. Myself and others do offer a refunds policy where targets are not met, according to a signed service agreement.

As for turning links away - there's a discussion there in itself. After all, is the client paying to own the links, or merely the "hire" of said links to ensure high rankings for a set period? For example, should a webhost provide webhosting for me after the period I actually pay for webhosting?

Anyway, I personally see real financial advantages in charging a modest "administration fee" over such networks, with an option for the client to purchase all domains and hosting plans supporting said network outright. During the administration period I can tweak as required, and ensure the sites stay afloat and keep do the business they were paid to do.

Also do note that link-building need not involve the building of doorway pages, mirrored content, spam sites, or cloaking. I have yet to be forced into using any of those methods, but I reserve the right to use them as necessary. Personally, I would rather stretch the boundaries of "Compliant SEO" far to new imaginative limits.

As for reading the implied reading of "content is all that SEO should be about" in your article - it could be specifically that this has been seen a major topic on these forums, and perhaps clouded my vision a little on this matter. I'll happily re-read again.

The trouble is, "Content SEO" is great for non-commericial terms, but in a commercial environment that traffic needs to be extremely targeted. That's where link building needs to emphasis competitive keyword anchors for increased ranking for those keyword terms. Content alone cannot deliver extremely targeted traffic.

Too often, though, we've seen self-claimed SEO's tout that content alone can actally do this, and act surprised that links have any relevance for ranking purposes. I guess seeing too much of that creates something of a sense of expectation. .

[edbarton]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Heck, more than once I've had an argument with site Mods or Admins, only to later become a much more constructive member. Happened at SitePoint, and it's happened here.

ditto

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Bernard

John, your "rebuttal" to my page is curious.

On the subject of guaranteed rankings, you responded, "Bull." Do you maintain that there is no need for caution when evaluating potential SEOs/SEMs that tout guarantees? Do you maintain that guarantees are not being used by some firms/individuals deceptively? Do you maintain that no one has ever been scammed by companies offering guarantees?

Bernard, where does this make any sense? SEO's who guarantee rankings are bad? I guarantee rankings for some clients. And I deliver on my guarantee. Do some scammer SEO's guarantee? Sure they do! But it has nothing to do with the guarantee. That's like saying "These scammer SEO's brush thier teeth - so let's be suspicious of everybody who brushes their teeth."

No - it doesn't make a bit of sense. Paying an SEO who doesn't gurantee is like throwing your money away. If he doesn't guarantee anything, he doesn't need to do anything, does he? He can just take your money and walk away.

Originally Posted by Bernard

On the subject of non-modifications of page content being a red flag, you responded "LOL.". Do you maintain that there do not exist companies that generate content/links from pages hosted on their own domains and which pull them the moment the client stops paying recurring fees, leaving the former clients back at square one? Do you consider this organic SEO?

Bernard, this is the problem. Read that paragraph. Do you see the leap of faith that isn't happening there? You are trying to equate "non-modifications of page content" with "companies that generate content/links from pages hosted on their own domains".

But they are two different things. Again, I don't see logic here. As I stated, some clients do not like their content modified. And, as I stated, I've achieved top ranking without modifying content. It's all about anchor text.

@ Daminc,

Grow some skin. Nobody attacked your friend. I stated my opinion of an article. I never stated an opinion of your friend. Grow up.

[Bernard]

I, Brian wrote
One of the problems with your article is that in places it is far too general, and criticises certain practices too inclusively, without making a distinction of where the respectable boundaries are.

I think most business owners who read my prose:

Search engines do not disclose their ranking algorithms. They do not offer SEO consultants "special relationships" that allow them favored or guaranteed rankings. Be sure to read the fine print on any guarantee if you are considering an SEO consultant on that basis!

are capable of understanding what was written in the intended context.

I, Brian wrote
For example, there is indeed some horrible glib marketing that "guarrantees top rankings". However, Professional SEO's have to offer some form of guarantee to justify their fee.

1. Thank you for acknowledging that my point was valid.
2. There are plenty of companies/consultants that charge a lot and do not offer guarantees.

I, Brian wrote
After all, is the client paying to own the links, or merely the "hire" of said links to ensure high rankings for a set period?

The problem is, it does not seem to occur to most noobs that such a distinction is possible as evidenced by public forum posts where business owners vent after figuring it out (after paying [or "throwing away" as I would call it] thousands of dollars). It does not seem that this is disclosed clearly by the practitioners of these methods.

JohnScott wrote
Bernard, where does this make any sense? SEO's who guarantee rankings are bad? I guarantee rankings for some clients. And I deliver on my guarantee.

1. You must let go of your myopia to see my point. Please reference the second and second to last paragraphs of my original post.
2. No. I did not say that SEO's who guarantee rankings are bad. I said that business owners should read the fine print of those that do.

JohnScott wrote
Do some scammer SEO's guarantee? Sure they do! But it has nothing to do with the guarantee.

It forms the entire basis for suckering clients for many scammers. Perhaps you do not get many members posting in your forum here stories about having chosen so and so because of their guarantee only to learn later that the service was not what they expected (although technically within what the guarantee warranted). I see them periodically at IHY. It is definitely valid to warn people to look at guarantees closely.

JohnScott wrote
No - it doesn't make a bit of sense. Paying an SEO who doesn't gurantee is like throwing your money away. If he doesn't guarantee anything, he doesn't need to do anything, does he? He can just take your money and walk away.

I'm not sure where you learned about business or contracting, but if a client engages a company to render services and the services are not delivered, there is a court system to offer relief. The key is to agree on what services are to be rendered and this absolutely does not require a guarantee of results. If it did, I suppose there would be no securities market as brokers cannot offer guarantees by law.

JohnScott wrote
You are trying to equate "non-modifications of page content" with "companies that generate content/links from pages hosted on their own domains".

I would venture to guess that the majority of companies that do not modify client content are, in fact, building link networks from domains/pages that they own or control. There is certainly enough of them out there to warrant warning people to be cautious.

JohnScott wrote
... I've achieved top ranking without modifying content.

Did you do it without any links from domains/pages that you own or control?

[John Scott]

You might want to re-werite your article if you don't really mean anything you wrote.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

You might want to re-werite your article if you don't really mean anything you wrote.

??? Where did I state or imply that I didn't mean anything that I wrote?

Shall I take your lack of response to the last question in my last post as an admission that I was right on that point?

[greg]

The guarantee is a good thing. You do not go hire someone to fix your car, and when you go to pick it up the thing is still messed up, and all they say is "well i tried, but didn't quite get the thing right, but you owe me anyway"......of course not, that would be the most pathetic excuse for a service ever.

It is the same thing with any service. You pay for results. You are not paying an seo good money to sit there and try to get some decent results for you, you are paying them to deliver. Without a guarantee the SEO could simply just not deliever, and not perform the service you asked them to do.

Now, in the same notion, a seo should set out clearly what they promise to acomplish. If a seo tells you that he will deliever #1 ranking for 'cell phone' then be a little weary. If you know for sure that something is way out of reach without spending millions, and they say they can do it then you might want to question that.

Also, always be sure that guarantee is worth something. Check with other customers that have used that seo and see if there ever was any trouble, and if they ever did get their money back. Believe me, the scammers in the world have their fair share of negative material about them.

Now, back to John. I've been around the guy for a while, i know him as well as anyone at this place. I've never seen him not deliever rankings, and i can promise you if he ever did manage not to deliever that he would back up his end of the guarantee. I dare anyone to find one dissatisfied customer of his, you wont be able to do it. Now go out and look for dissatisfied customers for people like Jill, and i am sure they are in abundance. That is results, and results are your best insurance.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Bernard

??? Where did I state or imply that I didn't mean anything that I wrote?

Shall I take your lack of response to the last question in my last post as an admission that I was right on that point?

Um, you backed off all your statements. So I assume you don't mean what you wrote. In case you forgot, you said:

There are several red flags that should put you on guard for when evaluating SEO consultants:

...
Offers of guaranteed rankings

Then you said:

No. I did not say that SEO's who guarantee rankings are bad.

So you are obviously bactracking. Why not just edit that nonsense out of the article?

It is definitely valid to warn people to look at guarantees closely.

Yes it is, but that doesn't mean a consumer should throw his money at an SEO who can't guarantee rankings.

I would venture to guess that the majority of companies that do not modify client content are, in fact, building link networks from domains/pages that they own or control.

No. I wouldn't agree with that. There are some SEOs who understand the power of anchor text and aren't too lazy to build up links from thousands of sites. This is, in fact, the only way you will achieve top ranking for the most competitive keywords. Page content which is optimized is often ugly:

Welcome! We are search engine optimisation specialists. In some places, we are called search engine marketers or search engine promotion professionals. We practise ethical search engine optimization techniques, also known as Internet marketing techniques, website optimisation or web site submission.

That's crap. You can leave good marketing copy on a page and achieve top rankings solely through anchor text if the client so desires.