Best SEO Firms

[John Scott]

And how in the sweet name of St Peter is a guarantee a "red flag"? How? The Internet is full of scammers. The SEO industry is full of incompetent, impotent, lazy ass scammers. Offering a guarantee is no more a red flag than owning a website.

What do you guarantee? That's you'll try your darned bestest?

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by Bernard

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

----------------------------

Why is a guarantee a red flag to be cautious? Because IMHO, it is used dishonestly by many scammers preying on noobs. One example is firms that guarantee 10 ten positions on search engines such as blah, blah, blah & Overture. They never explain that they will pay for an Overture PPC ad. The client is mislead - they expected organic search results.

There are other scams that do not involve Overture/PPC. Some do not qualify what terms the top ten rankings will be for (and they are not the ones the client was hoping for).

The scams are out there. I'm warning people to be cautious because I've seen the victims.

[John Scott]

I think I answered that question when I said "There are some SEOs who understand the power of anchor text and aren't too lazy to build up links from thousands of sites."

I do not control thousands of websites. I especially do not control thousands of websites having to do with contractors, real estate, auto loans, etc, etc.

As for the SEO guarantees.... Bernard, there are bank robbers who use cars to get away. Does that mean that all people driving cars are bank robbers? No. A guarantee is a basic principle of business. When a business buys anything, they most often need a guarantee of some sort. Even when I go into Burger King and order a Whopper with cheese, I expect to get a Whopper with cheese. If a restaurant said "We do not guarantee you anything you order. You may order and pay for food, and we may not give you anything" would you buy there?

[ezimoni]

Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted. However, there are a few unethical SEOs who have given the industry a black eye through their overly aggressive marketing efforts and their attempts to unfairly manipulate search engine results.
Google does not have relationships with any SEOs and does not offer recommendations, but they do have a few tips that may help you distinguish between an SEO that will improve your site and one that will only improve your chances of being dropped from search engine results altogether.

* Be wary of SEO firms that send you email out of the blue.
* No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google.
* Be careful if a company is secretive or won't clearly explain what they intend to do.
* You should never have to link to an SEO.
* Some SEOs may try to sell you the ability to type keywords directly into the browser address bar.
* Be sure to understand where the money goes.
* Talk to many SEOs, and ask other SEOs if they would recommend the firm you're considering.
* Make sure you're protected legally.

One common scam is the creation of "shadow" domains that funnel users to a site by using deceptive redirects. These shadow domains often will be owned by the SEO who claims to be working on a client's behalf. However, if the relationship sours, the SEO may point the domain to a different site, or even to a competitor's domain. If that happens, the client has paid to develop a competing site owned entirely by the SEO.

Another illicit practice is to place "doorway" pages loaded with keywords on the client's site somewhere. The SEO promises this will make the page more relevant for more queries. This is inherently false since individual pages are rarely relevant for a wide range of keywords. More insidious however, is that these doorway pages often contain hidden links to the SEO's other clients as well. Such doorway pages drain away the link popularity of a site and route it to the SEO and its other clients, which may include sites with unsavory or illegal content.

There are a few warning signs you may be dealing with a rogue SEO. It's far from a comprehensive list, so if you have any doubts, you should trust your instincts. By all means, feel free to walk away if the SEO:
owns shadow domains
puts links to their other clients on doorway pages
offers to sell keywords in the address bar
doesn't distinguish between actual search results and ads that appear in search results
guarantees ranking, but only on obscure, long keyword phrases you would
get anyway
operates with multiple aliases or falsified WHOIS info
gets traffic from "fake" search engines, spyware, or scumware
has had domains removed from Google's index or is not itself listed in Google

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I think I answered that question when I said "There are some SEOs who understand the power of anchor text and aren't too lazy to build up links from thousands of sites."

It would have been a lot clearer if your response had included a "yes" or a "no" rather than some ambiguous statement about "some" SEOs.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I do not control thousands of websites. I especially do not control thousands of websites having to do with contractors, real estate, auto loans, etc, etc.

I truly hope that you are attempting to be honest and forthright while engaging me in this discussion. Your language is very imprecise however. Just one domain can be used to generate thousands of pages. I will take it at face value that you are not attempting to be Clintonesque however.

You claim to be able to (or at least imply the ability to) generate thousands of one way, independent/3rd party links to your clients in the real estate and auto loan industries with your desired anchor text? Kudos to you. I trust these are quality links that would drive targeted direct traffic and not what I would call garbage links (referrer log spam, guestbook spam, etc.).

Even so, that does not invalidate my position at all. Until the majority of the SEO industry that does not modify client content is actually doing the tough work of soliciting 1-way, independent/3rd party links, my prose is on point.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

As for the SEO guarantees.... Bernard, there are bank robbers who use cars to get away.

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.

Straw Man Argument

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Bernard

I truly hope that you are attempting to be honest and forthright while engaging me in this discussion. Your language is very imprecise however. Just one domain can be used to generate thousands of pages. I will take it at face value that you are not attempting to be Clintonesque however.

Bernard, one domain can generate thousands of links, but they aren't worth much. IMR has 75,000 pages indexed (last I checked), but after the first dozen links, the boost given is minimal.

Giving a client 1,000,000 links from a single domain wouldn't really be very effective now, would it?

Originally Posted by Bernard

You claim to be able to (or at least imply the ability to) generate thousands of one way, independent/3rd party links to your clients in the real estate and auto loan industries with your desired anchor text? Kudos to you. I trust these are quality links that would drive targeted direct traffic and not what I would call garbage links (referrer log spam, guestbook spam, etc.).

A link has to drive traffic to be a quality link? Why is this? SEOInc.com is number one for the search term "search engine optimization", and many that site is there due to a ton of links from a ton of places. Guestbooks, off-topic sites, etc. A link is a link, whether it drives traffic or not. Blog spam can be very effective, too. If you're unaware of this, you might want to spend some time reverse engineering the rankings you see on Google for some competitive keywords.

Originally Posted by Bernard

Even so, that does not invalidate my position at all. Until the majority of the SEO industry that does not modify client content is actually doing the tough work of soliciting 1-way, independent/3rd party links, my prose is on point.

I'm pretty sure it does invalidate your argument. The majority of so-called professional SEOs just take a clients money, change the page titles, add keyword density, and target some non-competitive keywords that nobody ever searches for.

Until the majority of the so-called SEO professionals understand that this kind of page-tweaking SEO is useless excuse for unemployment, and either guarantee rankings or refund the client's money, then the SEO industry itself is just a scam. No?

I know the school of thought you belong to. The IHY/Jill Whalen school of thought. Here are the results of that school of thought:

weight loss kentucky (no searches - ranked in most engines)

weight loss KY (no searches - ranked in most engines)

weight loss surgery for morbidly obese (is she serious?) (no searches - ranked in most engines)

weight loss lexington (no searches - ranked in most engines)

http://www.seo-bitch.com/jill-whalen-seo-details.html

Yup. Pretty damn useless.

Originally Posted by Bernard

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.

I have presented no misrepresentation. You are the one who said guarantees are a red flag. You pretty much made yourself into the straw man there.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

A link has to drive traffic to be a quality link? Why is this?

It doesn't have to, but I would suspect that most business people would expect it if link building was offered as part of a service and not qualified. It's a non-issue as long as there is full disclosure IMO. Then it is up to the ethics of the client how far (over the proverbial edge) they want to go.

Of course, if a major search engine changed their algo tomorrow to ignore "non-elegant" links, would your clients still be happy?

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I'm pretty sure it does invalidate your argument.

I'm pretty sure you did not understand my position.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The majority of so-called professional SEOs just take a clients money, change the page titles, add keyword density, and target some non-competitive keywords that nobody ever searches for.

And that's why they have satisfied clients? Sorry, that generalization does not ring true at all IMO. If it were true, they would be out of business.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I know the school of thought you belong to. The IHY/Jill Whalen school of thought. Here are the results of that school of thought:

...

Yup. Pretty damn useless.

Please re-read the straw man argument. Jill Whalen's results for some keyphrases have absolutely zero to do with the content of my SEO Consultants page.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I have presented no misrepresentation.

You provided analogies (bank robber / Burger King) and argued your point against them. Those are straw man arguments.

Changing the subject and arguing against your off-topic subject (Jill Whalen) is also a form of the straw man argument.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

You are the one who said guarantees are a red flag.

Yes, I believe they are.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

You pretty much made yourself into the straw man there.

[John Scott]

Of course, if a major search engine changed their algo tomorrow to ignore "non-elegant" links, would your clients still be happy?

If you think about it, what is "off topic" linkage? At the bottom of this forum, there are links to hostdepartment.com. Are they off topic? SEO is not hosting. But both SEO and hosting are webmaster issues. Are those links off topic?

When Bob's Blog links to Dell, is that off topic? Bob discusses several things in his blog. Pizza, clowns, incompetent SEOs who take money and don't deliver rankings, etc. Who's to say those links to Dell are off topic?

In the end, the Internet is about websites, so as long as you're linking to a website and not a cup of coffee, it's on-topic.

And that's why they have satisfied clients? Sorry, that generalization does not ring true at all IMO. If it were true, they would be out of business.

http://www.seo-bitch.com/jill-whalen-seo-details.html

Name one competitive keyword Jill Whalen has gotten top ten ranking on. You can't, can you? But she's still in business. There are hundreds of SEO's like that. Just today I was checking out a professional SEO's website. I checked the ranking reports, and most of the search terms had ZERO searches per month. That's useless SEO, but he seems to be marketing his services well. Still in business - that's for sure.

You provided analogies (bank robber / Burger King) and argued your point against them. Those are straw man arguments.

Changing the subject and arguing against your off-topic subject (Jill Whalen) is also a form of the straw man argument.

Nobody is changing the subject, Bernard. It's a valid form of logical argument to take your proposition to the absurd conclusion. Try this on for size:

SEO Scammers often employ guarantees.
Guarantees must be a red flag.

SEO scammers wear socks.
Wearing of socks must be a red flag.

Your argument is worthless. It is totally and entirely unsupported. But this one really takes the cake:

Now that you know what to avoid, here are some tips on things you should look for in a good SEO consultant:

...
Consultant (or company personnel) frequent public SEO discussion forums

Um, hello? McFly? Have you ever been to an SEO forum? Some of the most worthless, lazy, incompetent SEO's are moderators of SEO forums.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

If you think about it, what is "off topic" linkage?

You say "off topic" linkage. You define what it means. I said "non-elegant" as a euphamism for "spammy" because I was being polite. The search engines more or less already define linkage in this category in their webmaster guidelines. Who is to say that they will not enforce them (algorithmically) at some point?

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Name one competitive keyword Jill Whalen ...

Red Herring

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Nobody is changing the subject, Bernard.

I think someone just tried to above. What's Jill got to do with the content of my SEO Consultant's page? Nothing.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

It's a valid form of logical argument to take your proposition to the absurd conclusion.

Inductive Fallacies:
Overgeneralizations that result from induction being treated as deduction; as if an absolute answer were logically given from the empiric (non-axiomatic) premises. Reductio ad Absurdum, reducing to absurdity, is a tried-out method (well-used in comedy) to show that this leads to absurd contradictions.

http://infogettable.net/glossary/glossary?item_id=3514

You did not show a deductive contradiction. You argued against an analogy.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Try this on for size:

SEO Scammers often employ guarantees.
Guarantees must be a red flag.

SEO scammers wear socks.
Wearing of socks must be a red flag.

Your argument is worthless.

Another straw man. If you are going to try and argue against a point, you need to argue the point as it is:

SEO scammers use guarantees to mislead/scam potential clients.
Guarantees are red flags to be cautious.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

... But this one really takes the cake:

Um, hello? McFly? Have you ever been to an SEO forum? Some of the most worthless, lazy, incompetent SEO's are moderators of SEO forums.

Let's put my recommendation in the proper context:

SEO consultants who maintain a high profile on one or more SEO themed internet discussion forums offer you the opportunity to research their post history to evaluate their positions on professional ethics issues, competence and suitability for your needs. They may be more accessible and accountable as well with a public reputation to uphold.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that your unsupported, sweeping generalization is not what they call (in psychology) a "projection".

Thanks for the discussion. It's been grand. I do not believe that you are honestly attempting to understand or discuss what I wrote. Have fun with the diatribes.

[John Scott]

Bernard,

You have not proven or even attempted to prove that SEO guarantees are in any fashion a scam tactic. Instead of addressing the actual issues of the debate, you attempt to hide behind semantics. You have demonstrated a glorious cowardice and inability to back up your own words. It is a show of unmanliness to in the same league with Clinton's "that would depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is" crap.

Run if you wish, but you are more than welcome to address the issues. (A novel concept for you, no doubt.)

Originally Posted by Bernard

Red Herring

LOL. Jill Whalen is a change of subject? Your own words:

Now that you know what to avoid, here are some tips on things you should look for in a good SEO consultant:

...
Consultant (or company personnel) frequent public SEO discussion forums

My words:

Jill Whalen runs a busy SEO forum, and is still the most incompetent of SEOs.

This is not "an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue".

In fact it goes to the heart of the issue. You beautifully demonstrates the error of your statements. You know this. You purposely avoid addressing the issues.

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Run if you wish, but you are more than welcome to address the issues. (A novel concept for you, no doubt.)

Well, if you are going to call me out, I will make one last attempt. BTW,

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Immature and abusive behaviour is not to be tolerated here.

I take it your personal shot there is not included? It doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd point out the inconsistency.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Bernard,

You have not proven or even attempted to prove that SEO guarantees are in any fashion a scam tactic.

And you have failed to refute it. Are you suggesting that SEO guarantees are not and never have been used as scam tactics in any fashion by any SEOs? Are you serious? It is trite comments like this that make me think you are not serious about this discussion.

Sorry I don't have a ton of links to show you enough testimonials to be considered empirical evidence. Most victims do not like to brag in public about being scammed. I did look for a couple of the threads that I've seen over the last year or so, but I was unable to find them within 20 minutes of searching.

I'll just leave you with this link (pay attention to ajeshnair's posts) and my opinion that you are not being very honest on this issue:

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...opic=1858&st=0

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Instead of addressing the actual issues of the debate, you attempt to hide behind semantics.

I suggest you re-read this thread. I have tried my best to keep the "debate" on topic despite your best efforts to derail the discussion with fallacies and red herrings.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

LOL. Jill Whalen is a change of subject?

Yes. Jill Whalen is not topic of discussion in my article.

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Jill Whalen runs a busy SEO forum, and is still the most incompetent of SEOs.

This is not "an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue".

In fact it goes to the heart of the issue.

1. You are mis-characterizing the issue by excluding the context in which it was presented.
2. You have avoided speaking to the issue in context.

Following your red herring...

1. I'll let Jill decide if your unsupported comment above is worthy of pursuing for libel.
2. Jill's high profile is exactly the kind of insurance a prospective client can count on to ensure that s/he will not be scammed. This is the point of the text on my page.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Bernard

And you have failed to refute it. Are you suggesting that SEO guarantees are not and never have been used as scam tactics in any fashion by any SEOs? Are you serious? It is trite comments like this that make me think you are not serious about this discussion.

Bernard, does common sense totally escape you? SEO scammers use many tools and tactics. That shouldn't cast doubt on the tool or tactic.

SEO scammers use WordTracker - should use of WordTracker be a red flag?

SEO scammers often use WebPosition Gold - should use of WebPosition Gold be a red flag?

SEO scammers often change the page titles - should changing page titles be a red flag?

NO!

An SEO guarantee, like any other guarantee in this world, should be examined closely. Clients should read any contract put before them. But just because scammers use guarantees doesn't mean that clients should just hire any bozo who refuses to guarantee anything.

I asked before:

What do you guarantee? That's you'll try your darned bestest?

If you think a serious business is going to engage the services of anybody without specific performance guarantee, then you're living in Lala Land.

If an SEO cannot guarantee anything, he needs to get out of the business.

I'll just leave you with this link (pay attention to ajeshnair's posts) and my opinion that you are not being very honest on this issue:

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/in...opic=1858&st=0

I clicked and found:

A well known company is offerring top 10 rankings in 10 days

Which is of course cheap crap. Thank you for bringing cheap crap into a serious discussion. <sarcasm>An obvious scam - yes, this adds value to the discussion. </sarcasm>

Bernard, I don't know if you're pretending to be dull or if you really are, but if I host my site somewhere, I want guaranteed uptime. If I hire somebody to design a website, I want it guaranteed done in X number of days. The guarantee is a basic principle. Whether scammers use it or not is entirely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Bernard

1. You are mis-characterizing the issue by excluding the context in which it was presented.
2. You have avoided speaking to the issue in context.

Bernard, again, nice song and dance, but try to be serious for a moment. You stated that consumers should look to hire an SEO professional who spends his time posting on forums.

SEO consultants who maintain a high profile on one or more SEO themed internet discussion forums offer you the opportunity to research their post history to evaluate their positions on professional ethics issues, competence and suitability for your needs.

Just because somebody posts on forums does not make them an SEO pro. I don't know if you seriously believe what you wrote, or you just wrote it to waste bandwidth, but it isn't useful advice. A lot of the most competent SEOs do not post on forums. Two of the most successful SEOs I know do not post on forums, and these arre guys with top ten rankings for gambling and online casino keyphrases.

And yet, SEO forum junkies such as Jill Whalen and some others who I'll leave unnamed bragging about their ability to get top rankings on search terms nobody ever searches under. I'm talking about moderators at a particular SEO forum.

Forum participation would seem to provide absolutely no indication of SEO ability.

Originally Posted by Bernard

1. I'll let Jill decide if your unsupported comment above is worthy of pursuing for libel.

Unsupported? Bernard, one thing I hate is an A** who wastes my time replying in a thread like this without reading it. It's just pure laziness.

Jill Whalen's incompentence has been proven time and again. She even admitted to it herself.

http://www.seo-bitch.com/jill-whalen-seo-details.html

Read first, think, then post.

Originally Posted by Bernard

2. Jill's high profile is exactly the kind of insurance a prospective client can count on to ensure that s/he will not be scammed. This is the point of the text on my page.

I love this statement. You actually do believe this crap. You think that if somebody posts in forums enough, then they are qualified. Regardless of her client's horrible rankings, and rankings for keywords that nobody searches under, you're ready to give her the keys to the city solely on the basis of her forum activity.

Mind boggling gullibility.