Best SEO Firms

[emg35]

I am looking to start spending some big money on seo work but would like to find out who the players are first. I am in the casino portal biz so I need a firm that can handle the work. I don't mind spending the cash but I need results. Also they would need to be able to handle some site design.

emg35

[John Scott]

Casino site - for results you're looking at a min. of $15,000.

[emg35]

So far the pricing I have gotten is $50,000 to $72,000 a yr.

emg35

[emg35]

So far the pricing I have gotten is $50,000 to $72,000 a yr.

emg35

[John Scott]

That's the kind of pricing you'll need if you are going after the best keywords. It'll take nothing short of buying a million links to get you top ranked.

[Daminc]

Here's a good article that may help you decide:
http://www.seo-help.com/seo-articles...nsultants.html

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Daminc

Here's a good article that may help you decide:
http://www.seo-help.com/seo-articles...nsultants.html

There are several red flags that should put you on guard for when evaluating SEO consultants:
...
Offers of guaranteed rankings

Bull. If they do not offer you a money-back guarantee, they can simply take your money and run.

Search engines do not disclose their ranking algorithms.

It's an SEO's job to know as much about the algo as possible. If an SEO isn't familiar with the ranking algo, he ought not be an SEO.

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

...

Offers for SEO that advertise no modifications necessary to your existing site

And:

SEO consultants who offer to improve your ranking without need to edit your site are not engaging in organic search engine optimization. They are not optimizing anything.

LOL. SEO's who need to modify page content might not be optimizing anything. I had one client who didn't want the pages modified, and I got him top ten rankings on ALL of his keywords without modifying pages. Guaranteed rankings, BTW.

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

Divulges / explains in detail what they will do
Consultant (or company personnel) frequent public SEO discussion forums
Tracks conversions as well as (or instead of) rankings
Has been vetted by SEO Consultants and/or SEOPros

Um, no.

Divulges / explains in detail what they will do

Why explain your methods in detail? So the client can take notes and then go do the job himself?

Consultant (or company personnel) frequent public SEO discussion forums

That's a crock. Should I only buy sushi from restaurants that send employees to post in public forums? Should I buy coffee only from cafes that send employees to post in public forums? It's non-sense.

Tracks conversions as well as (or instead of) rankings

Marketing is in charge of conversions. SEO is in charge of rankings.

Has been vetted by SEO Consultants and/or SEOPros

Inclusion in SEOConsultants.com may actually be a sign of incompetence insofar as many competent SEO's I know wouldn't be able to get into that directory. SEOConsultants is a one-man show with very narrow anti-spam mentality.

SEOPros.com is just plain useless.

[I, Brian]

The article is right that spammers and auto-submission software are likely not going to do any good - but the overall perception of what SEO is and does is extremely narrow.

Again, it's another example of someone arguing that Content SEO is all that SEO should be about - when it absolutely isn't. Links are king. The writer of that article seems to know nothing about that.

[Daminc]

Ok, I don't know why you would have to post such a diatribe as you have but as an impartial individual I shall try and balance your attack.

Bull. If they do not offer you a money-back guarantee, they can simply take your money and run

I believe the context was different with regards to:

Offers of guaranteed rankings

. When I read it I remember the Guaranteed top placement blah, blah, blah what the customer didn't realise was the'top placement' may have been or a search term that nobody ever used. Red Flag means, in this context, use caution.

It's an SEO's job to know as much about the algo as possible.

That's true. But what has that got to do with Search engines do not disclose their ranking algorithms., which is also true.

Guaranteed rankings, BTW

PPC campaign by any chance?

Why explain your methods in detail?

Allows the client to itemise their budget, allows them peace of mind, increases their confidence in the SEO company which can lead to more referals.

That's a crock.

I'm tempted to get annoyed here but I don't know you well enough to judge whether you're egocentric (toned down) or just agumentative. The advantages of viewing a SEO 'specialist' online would be to get clarification on the strategies they use or the amount of respect given to them with the SEO community.

Marketing is in charge of conversions. SEO is in charge of rankings

Ah, sematics. In the company I work for we see SEO as part of SEM. If I was to optimise a page for specific keyphrase but didn't get any conversions that may show that I'm optimising for the wrong phrase.

Hey Brian

Links are king

Links are Queens, Content is King

[edbarton]

Why do you say that links are queens?

Surely they are more important than content.

You can have the best content in the world but without links then you are nowhere.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Daminc

PPC campaign by any chance?

Um, no. This is the SEO forum. If you wish to discuss pay per click, you might want to go back to some incompetent SEO forum like Jill's.

Why explain your methods in detail?

Allows the client to itemise their budget, allows them peace of mind, increases their confidence in the SEO company which can lead to more referals.[/quote]

More bull. Referrals come from getting your clients top rankings, not itemized hours. LOL

I'm tempted to get annoyed here but I don't know you well enough to judge whether you're egocentric (toned down) or just agumentative. The advantages of viewing a SEO 'specialist' online would be to get clarification on the strategies they use or the amount of respect given to them with the SEO community.

More bull. Jill Whalen has a forum. She posts all day and all night. But nobody is saying she's a truely effective SEO. In fact, if you look at the rankings she's gotten for her clients, they are bunk.

Forum participation means squat.

Ah, sematics. In the company I work for we see SEO as part of SEM. If I was to optimise a page for specific keyphrase but didn't get any conversions that may show that I'm optimising for the wrong phrase.

Not any more sematics than the difference between a plumber and a cook.

Hey Brian

Links are Queens, Content is King

You want to back that statement up? Or are you just regurgitating crap you read elsewhere?

Shoqw me one highly competitive keyword that has PR0 page in the top ten on Google.

Links are king. This is old news.

[John Scott]

On the links vs content topic:

http://www.internet-marketing-resear...erank-wins.php

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000089.html

[Daminc]

<Mod edit by I, Brian - immature rant and abuse edited out>

[I, Brian]

Heh, why is it that everytime there's a strong discussion here, someone cries "semantics!"?

As for this:

Originally Posted by Daminc

Hey Brian

Links are Queens, Content is King

Good content makes for a great foundation for SEO - but, ultimately, it's the links that will make or break a commerical site. You cannot rank high for competitive commercial terms on content alone.

And it's the competitive commerical terms that commercial clients demand - and are served with by Professional SEO's.

[I, Brian]

Daminc, any more abuse and you'll be booted out.

We've had very intense discussions here before now, but in each instance, the posters have been able to comport themselves honourably.

You are not being attacked, you are not being insulted - you are merely being disagreed with.

If you cannot handle that stay off public forums.

Immature and abusive behaviour is not to be tolerated here.

[Daminc]

<Admin Edit>

[Daminc]

You cannot rank high for competitive commercial terms on content alone.

Furthering my Links are Queens, Content is King comment. I was making a play on words. "Content is King" has been a catchphrase for a long time. The reference to Links are Queens was ment to imply equal importance IMO. Many links to a site with no content is just as bad as good content with no-one reading it.

[Emancipator]

Why dont we all take a step back, take a deeep breath and get back on topic. As Brian says, we have piles of discussions and debates, many of which me and brian disagree on But key is to not make things personal.

I for one believe content is king but not in the context of onpage content alone. Having a good theme of onsite and offsite content has always worked for me. My 2 cents, and I do not ever claim to be an SEO expert. I am just a lowly webdev

[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.

As for the comment "Content is King" - heh, your intentions weren't clear, as that's been a pretty strong subject before now. Usually "Content is King" seems expressed at the expense of links. We've seen plenty of examples from other "self-claimed SEO's" wonder what all the fuss about links is.

And note that "Queen" is neither an equal term, nor without it's negative connotations. That's from a fellow Brit.

Emancipator is right, though - step back, deep breath.

[Emancipator]

Clearer heads will always prevail. If me and brian could get through our debates without resorting to gunplay, i figure anyone can