There are lots of standardized definitions of SEO (see define query), but few that exist to define or distill the qualities that make a person a professional SEO. The way I see it, there are three ways a professional can be categorized and assigned - technical, self-constructed and peer validated.
Technical: An SEO is one who practices search engine optimization.
Self-Constructed: I practice search engine optimization as a significant portion of the professional work I undertake and am, therefore, an SEO.
Peer Validated: A community of peers in the SEO field has recognized this individual's achievement and views them as qualified for the title.
In the SEO world, these are very informal and anyone is technically allowed to call themselves what they like (and though I'll quibble later in the post with some self-titling, I don't believe any regulation should exist). However, in many other fields, primarily those with a long-established history (lawyer, doctor, law enforcement, engineer, politician), external requirements are a neccessity.
That said, the SEO community appears to be growing in its formalization. Events, organizations, and external recognition, along with the growing value and importance of the practice seem, to me, to be the driving forces at work. I love this community and always have - it's inspired me, carried me and given me so much that I can never repay enough, but I'd like to add a brief editorialization. It is my personal opinion that unless an individual has these three qualities, I would not personally peer-validate them as an SEO and would hope to be cast out should I not personally exhibit these:
- Knowledgable in the Basics of Search Engine Operations (not just SEO, but the fundamentals of how search engines work)
- Actively Practicing SEO by Influencing Change to Websites & Pages and Measuring the Impact
- Consistently Formulating & Testing Theories About Metrics/Variables that Influence Search Engine Results
I've been a bit frustrated of late by the demeaning of our profession by those who do not take the practice seriously nor apply the craft with the respect it's due. And, furthermore, I'm conflicted about those who'd suggest that our field or our practice should not embrace the principles above. It seems disingenuous, even intellecutally dishonest, to claim to "optimize" for search engines, and yet be lacking in knowledge, not actively practicing (and measuring!), or refrain from critical thinking, brainstorming, forming hypotheses and testing.
Am I too harsh? Should I be more lenient? Or, do we, as a community, want to apply some standards in peer validating those who claim the title of SEO? If so... Are these the right ones?
Many professions exist without the requirement of qualifications, web development being a prime example. The quality of a person’s portfolio in SEO as with so many other walks in life is a great judge of ability.
The main reason that some people put down our profession is that they do not truly understand the depth and complexity of the work involved.
Its a very interesting point that you raise, SEO skills seem to be increasingly required of everyone from web designers, copywriters, coders and so on.
A full time SEO these days seems to need to have recognition that is definable from his/her peers - kind of playing into that personal branding post from a few weeks back.
Im all for a professional accreditation system, however with the rapid changing world of optimization a "course" that would give you the qualification would no doubt be out of date by the time you started learning it, rendering such a qualification useless.
I guess the true accreditation system is working either on major projects, or having a portfolio of sites (preferrably self owned) that rank competitively for tough keywords. That system would in itself really restrict the numbers of people that could call them selves SEO'ers.
Instead of:
I'm thinking more along the lines of:
True for me anyway... I have to know a lot more than "SEO" as part of my job.
Agreed SEO is part of the online marketing toolbox. Using just SEO to promote a site is missing valuable opportunities (such as ppc, email marketing etc.) that will help increase a clients revenue stream.
Personally I believe that a strong, well balanced online marketing strategy is key to the success of most sites. I've always called my role 'Online Marketing' rather than 'just' SEO.
If an accreditation is offered, the accrediting body should require continuing education credits be earned each year.
I think you make some valid points, but just to play devils advocate for a minute, is it always the non-seo SEO's who are to blame? What I mean here is, doesn't the demanding market have some blame to take here.
Lets look at the example of small businesses. They mostly seem to understand now that a website and traffic is important. However, the money isn't really there for a large marketing budget, they already use a web developer and they just want him to "do his best" with getting them more visible. So at the request of the client they do, and the results are decent. So they then tell another small business that they were able to do agood job for ACME corp, and thus the start of being an "SEO".
Are they any less of any "SEO" then the big guy who did a good job for a larger client? Sure they probably didn't spend hours on testing, but there had to be some testing done to see what was working and what wasn't for their client. They also may not have implemented everything themselves, but they had to know what to tell the person who did implement them.
I guess my point is, without some of the smaller non-SEO's that you refer to, how would the small business who couldn't afford the real SEO keep up? Or would the search engines just be dominated by websites that could afford the service. Much like the in the judicial system where the guy with the expensive lawyer always seems to have the advantage.
Just a thought.
Edit - In no way is this comment meant to condone people and ocmpanies who do nothing to help a client but sell them services anyway, or who out right know nothing at all about SEO and call themselves this.
That's a great point. It in now way excuses bad SEO practicioners and self-professed "experts", but how much snake oil exists (in any industry) because people want to believe that snake oil will cure them? We see it in web design, too - it's easy to bash designers for building all-Flash sites with terrible SEO and usability, and yet there are 100s of restaurants, lawyers, etc. begging for Flash sites because they're easily impressed by what they think is the latest and greatest. When there's demand, someone will always try to fill it.
Edit: It occurs to me, and I think it's important to note, that this exists in all other industries as well. Bernie Madoff, for example, is in jail right now because he told people what they wanted to hear. I'm not excusing his reprehensible behavior in any way, but it's shocking how many people handed their money over to him and never bothered to dig into the details or ask questions, even when it was blatantly obvious that his scheme was too good to be true. In that environment, you can be sure that a dozen other Ponzi schemes are just around the corner.
Great point, and illustration with Madoff. I don't think these are OK, but you are right a customer is a customer and if they are paying for something you can only push them so far in the other direction before they decide to go somewhere else. Maybe in some cases going somewhere else is a good thing, but if you are reasonably confident that you can gain them some exposure and traffic, then why should you be shunned by the SEO community as a HACK when all you were doing was providing a legitimate service to a client. Maybe you weren't doing it at the level of Rand, but you still did a service which benefited the company, right?
On the less malevolent side, how many people get into SEO to help out a client, knowing they don't know a lot but sincerely wanting to contribute? I'd bet a lot of us got into SEO that way originally, in one form or another. In most cases, we did more good than harm and eventually some of us became competent professionals.
That is essentially how I got my start! I had no idea what I was doing initially but I researched the basics here on seomoz, made some changes, kept researching, kept making changes and sure enough I had a happy boss with more web traffic and 4 other happy small businesses that I freelanced my skills to.
Nice post and nice response.
This industry and the market for SEO is really still in the proto stage of development. Over time all of these issues will straighten themselves out. Education providers and professional organizations will continue to develop and thrive - and consensus will form in the marketing community as to what a good search marketing firm will deliver.
I tend to think the direction is towards the whole 9 yards - to truly serve my client base - I need heavy dosages of general marketing skills, web development skills, SEO skills, PPC skills etc. Thus, I'd predict we're probably in the halycon days of the succesful freelancer - larger consulting entities will form as markets mature and web development and design shops continue their evolution.
One interesting side note is that many local small businesses generally can't afford quality web development and search marketing help. That's why I believe they are flocking to offshore and low cost providers - yet buyer beware! as no where is the old adage so true as in all things internet marketing: "You Get What You Pay For!"
I think #3 is the least practiced amongst an overwhelming percentage of SEOs.
The importance of the scientific method cannot be under-emphasized in this industry saturated with hearsay and conjecture.
My Observations
About 5 or 6 years ago I remember there being only a handful of SEOs on the first page the SERPs for my city. Since then, the majority of Montreal's web design/web development firms have jumped right on the bandwagon.
During this same period, when I was working for the top ranked SEO company over here, we often would deal with these same web site design companies. They made really pretty sites, but knew nothing about getting them properly indexed. Our company's interactions with these firms often followed the same theme; we'd need access to their custom content management system on their servers, and we'd be granted rights to a few directories in order to make the on-site modifications we needed to for our clients. Never more access than was necessary, however, to prevent us from stealing the source code of their not-so-search-engine-friendly, proprietary CMS's.
It wasn't long before we started seeing all these web design companies including the term 'SEO' in the titles of their services pages, and soon after, their index pages. Of course they wanted to cash in on SEO - somehow.
My Rant
I've watched many companies make the transition into the world of search engine optimization - from design to even hosting companies. I see a lot of SEO principals implemented in questionable ways; from blogs added to sites with posts made on completely non-relevant subject matter and Sphinned (or sphunn), to sites consisting of all w3c validated pages but missing the basics of semantic html. What about every instance of a keyword on a page embedded in a strong or bold element?
I see a lot of clients that are giving SEO another shot after being let down in the past. They've suffered the bitter taste of scenarios such as:
These clients have learned through their hardships what to be wary of, and unfortunately the term SEO is one of them.
My Decision
When I moved my company over to a more brandable name/domain name, I faced an important decision that took me a long time to make; whether or not to continue to include the term SEO in my brand. The industry has been tainted by so many snake oil salesmen that I've actually found myself hesitant to describe my services by its most fitting title!
My Point
While other factors did play into the decision to keep 'SEO' in my new domain name, the fact that I was afraid to add a descriptive 3-letter word into the name was undeniably ironic. Others may disagree, and I'm not going to say my decision is best for every situation, but it was the best for me.
Are there a ton of web professionals that are a bit too quick to label themselves as SEOs? Definitely. Does the small percentage of the mainstream that has heard of SEO have negative associations with the term? Unquestionably. Am I going to refer to the profession I take very seriously - and love - as something other than it is because of misconceptions created by a notorious percentage? Not in this lifetime.
I often see a new SEO site/page appear for my area and i get excited to be honest! I think "cool, someone local to talk and network with." But then i check out the site and portfolio and im immediately let down...
I think the problem comes from web developers arrogance. They see SEO as easy and something which pales in comparrision to their super developement skills (no offence to nice web dev people out there but im sure you've met your fair share of arrogant ones to).
I would agree with this. It seems the more web dev professionals I see, the more I see claim to be SEO qualified, when sadly this is rarely the case.
I got contacted today for outsourcing SEO. The guys website had no PR and no backlinks. So I phoned the guy up - he said SEO is so competitive it's not worth trying to rank his site! He then carried on trying to sell me his link building service.
how very typical. I really cant stand these scammers.
SEO is a branch of marketing. The best marketers aren't certified, they are recognized by results. But some famous crappy marketers get by on style or long past results.
SEO, being new, needs to consistently prove its value before (most) people become willing to part with their money based on money alone.
Unfortunately, too many self-proclaimed SEOs have taken advantage people who aren't very knowledgable (I can't remember where and can't be bothered to find the link, but SEO was listed as a top 5 most high-paying job for people with no education so don't be surprised).
General marketing is established enough that scammers and has-beens won't damage the profession.
If SEOs want to be on an equal footing with marketers (and receive equal respect), then we need to consistently demonstrate ROI.
Standards can eliminate the worst of the worst, but, like in marketing, standards won't separate the cream. And deciding on standards is, um, challenging.
"50% of my advertising budget is wasted, I just don't know which 50%."
Testing and learning what exactly builds ROI is a challenge, but almost everyone knows the (above) tired old marketing clichee, so the bar is really, really, really low.
i dont think its marketing i think its presenting your data in a usefull and indexable way so others can find your work
I have seen SEO (and have ever since I entered the field 1.5 yrs ago) as Marketing...for what its worth
I find this article and discussion a little . . . funny. I always thought that SEO was equivalent to the term "online marketing." If people mainly get to your site via a search engine, then this search engine is going to be your best friend. But perhaps online marketing is knowing how your online customers behave whereas SEO is knowing how search engines work. It's up for discussion.
But I don't see how people can belittle SEO or online marketing. Every time I briefly explain it to "the person on the street," they understand that a website is useless unless people know it's there and people return to it. What's the point of setting up shop if no one comes to it? And then I explain to them that it's not easy to get people to the site just as it's not easy to get customers to the store at the get-go. Most people use Google to look for anything and Google is a pretty tricky AI to work with. Companies spend thousands of dollars just to be the first site you see when you look anything up in Google.
And what's more, this is a skill that no college or vocational school or university can ultimately teach you. The rules keep on changing and Google keeps on changing. By the time even a book is published or a corriculum is established, some of it's content is already obsolete. Revisions are in order.
Online marketers/SEO-ers are high in demand, low in supply.
And online marketing IS marketing. And just like "regular" marketing, there is no magic all-purpose solution that's going to get customers to your door, let alone traffic to your site. Anything that guarantees quick results is just about as reliable as those exerciise commercials that promise the same thing.
And the very fact that the rules keep changing, forces online marketers/SEO-ers to keep on their toes, always questioning, always testing, always researching, and sharing discoveries. If not, how else will we learn? Is Google going to tell us everything (haha)? I think the very fact that the rules keep on changing gives it somewhat a level playing field. The novice with fresh ideas can bring something valuable to the table that the long-time veteran didn't see before. We can always learn something new. And who has the TIME to devote to this except the online marketer - a specialist?
What makes a SEO? Perhaps we need a ranking system, like white belt to black belt. We're all SEO-ers. We're all online marketers, just like those that do marketing are marketers. It's where we fit in the ranks that deem an adjective or two to our title.
I don't think you're too harsh...IMO a real SEO needs to understand : 1) Technology (I don't need to explain this to people who understand)2) Marketing (There is a strong correlation between what you do as an SEO and what you want to reach.... )Many who call themselves SEO's don't have both .... And I am not talking about a little experience in tech or marketing ... I think an SEO with official degrees in both fields and added experience is most likely to be called a professional SEO ....
Lex Gwww.newmediatype.com
Thank you for mentioning Marketing.
many SEO's I've met and spoken to are one trick ponies. Sure they can sit there and build thousands and thousands of links but they lack the proper knowledge in marketing...so they end up with a website with decent rankings with no conversion...shame.
Great point, LexG. I strongly believe marketing is essential. An SEO-er is dealing with both human and machine. .....Google is both human and machine, too, you know.
This will never cease whilst the barriers are so low and the understanding of the work from a client perspective is so limited.
I class myself as an SEO expert (I have ran campaigns across more than 40 countries with success) and I took the step to start doing some extra client work on the side to help cover the bills. I was able to put together a quick, professional looking site and start offering my services to clients within a couple of days. The point is its so damn easy to start a web business!
Add to this the "dark arts" that clients don't understand and the amount of money available in the industry and you can understand why people flock to get involved.
There is no defining solution to this, all we can hope for is that clients see through the useless SEO's and eventually found someone who does the business.
I have to add that this doesn't just stop with small time operations such as consultants. I have seen reports from big agencies charging ~£120k (just for recommendations) where they still suggest META description optimisation as a key requirement.
Agreed. Its the best possible argument for the "educate your client" philosophy. Some SEO companies are still unwilling to do this.
I always chuckle when the conversation turns to what makes an SEO, especially talk of accreditation and certification.
There's an important difference between accreditation and certification. Accreditation comes from an highly regarded outside body that determines standards and tests for compliance (both the letter and spirit). I do not think any organization has enough trust or acceptance to become an accepted accrediting body.
A certification can come from anyone. It's a much lower bar to meet. I know of SEO firms, software companies and others that offer certifications in SEO. How valuable those certifications are depend not on the strength of the training or the skills of the certified, it depends on how much employers and the marketplace value the certification itself.
[There is only one organization I'd trust a certification from. It's a small company in Seattle's Capital Hill district that you may be familiar with. ;)]
When I evaluate an SEO practitioner I look at their knowledge, experience and understanding as well as their strategies and tactics. Obviously I expect much more from a senior level SEO than one just beginning a professional career, but both deserve to be called SEO practitioners. I value an SEO with a deep level of understanding over an assembly line producer. Again, however, both are SEO professionals.
Right now, in my head I can hear Matthew Shepard talking about the USA being advanced democracy. I feel the same way about SEO. To be a good SEO you have to want it bad and work hard at it.
I agree. Dedication and continuing education is key. When people ask my I have to call my programmer or someone else on my team I always say because what I do is the SEO. I have a lot of skills in Internet Marketing, websites/design/development, Blogging...but the SEO is what I really love.
How could I forget this?
It's about how to tell if someone is a social media expert, but it sure fits.
I don't know that its possible to do SEO at all without some birds eye view of how search engine works, but i don't know how many SEOs would beneifit from learning how to implement an SVD to understand the concepts of LSI. I say this from personal experience learning about search.
The proof is always in the pudding. Consistently Formulating & Testing Theories About Metrics/Variables that Influence Search Engine ResultsYes, but really this brings up the bigger issue of how many SEO/SEM have taken the time to formally learn statistics? You can come up with great tests, have reasonable data, but if you don't know how to read it, then you are dead in the water.
So yeah, less of knowing the deep inner workings of SE and more understanding of deep statistics.
Nice post!
Idea: Let Jason Gambert decide who gets to use the term "SEO"! (not)
The problem is everyone thinks they are an SEO. People think they can jump on a computer – read a blog and the next minute start building quality links. They soon realize that it takes time, strategy, and commitment to a project that they can’t possibly accomplish. The next step for them is looking for an easy way out. This means jeopardizing their site or their client’s site and gives a bad reputation to themselves and the SEO industry as a whole.
I think a good rule of thumb should be used before you can call yourself an SEO. Have you personally helped build a website that delivers high search engine rankings and that has actually accomplished a goal? If not you cannot call yourself an SEO and you should probably go back to the drawing board.
The amount of people on forums who ask the most basic of SEO questions but have a fat arsed "SEO SERVICES" link in the footer is getting ridiculous! Honestly, it drives me frickin nuts!
India gets a lot of grief for it but in all honesty its prevelant all over the world and especially in the UK. There are companies over here who sell dirt cheap SEO packages to foolish customers with no intention of doing any work and also no desire for them to renew next year. They get some quick cash and then forget about the client. There's loads of them and some big names to!
Do i think we should be regulated? Probably not, should we focus on ethical SEO as our industry "brand name", probably. But i've even started to see SEO companies claiming to be ethical in an attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
I think the answer is education. Everyone knows about timeshare or double glazing scams so we need to educate people about spotting genuine SEO. One rule should always apply IMO - dont buy stuff from people who call you up! If they were that good they wouldnt need a telesales department!!
Hey Rand,
The interesting thing about SEO is that it's still such a new method of marketing, such a new industry, that there really is no barriers for many companies claiming to provide SEO Services.
Take for example the company I am currently contracted for, working as a liason. They have absolutely no idea how to SEO and 6 months ago, they contracted a fairly well known SEO firm (i will not disclose this).
Turns out they were taking advantage of this company's lack of SEO knowledge. 6 months later, they reported to me that they are performing "keyword research and competitive research." Upon asking for some data I can review and familiarize myself with, they had nothing...Upon asking for what they've done in the past 6 months, they had nothing to give...
I was in absolute disbelief...for the amount of money that this company was paying for SEO Services, how do you go 6 months without a single number or any data to show? And this coming from a supposed legitimate SEO firm?
To be honest, this goes for many marketing firms out there in general...email, SEM, SEO, I've seen and had bad experiences with many firms providing these services.
It really is a shame that there are so many companies claiming to provide this and that but have absolutely no results.
Should we regulate and work to validate those who are deserving of the SEO title? I don't know because I remember back in the days when I first started looking into SEO, it was daunting. And to be shunned out by the community would've been a nightmare, but whether or not you claim to be an SEO or not, if you don't have results, you have nothing.
So why are people trying to make money via SEO when they have nothing?
FORGET TITLES
First please do not judge my website as a testament to my SEO, Web Design or Internet Marketing Abilities as I do not have the time to invest to make my site #1 in the search engines nor is that my goal. I would personally rather spend 5 hours helping my clients or learn new tools to help them rank better than work on my own website.
For me there is an issue with classifying anyone a SEO Expert because tomorrow everything you think you know can change. For a Doctor, a Lawyer; this isn't the case. It takes years for new laws to past, and while Doctors continually discover new things they are not going to wake up one day and realize every human has changed to a more complex being and they can no longer save lives.
Thus my point becomes if Google decides tomorrow to completely revamp their ranking platform--you as a self deemed "SEO Expert" just became a rookie again, because what you knew is no longer accurate.
I agree that to be an SEO you need to follow the 3 points mentioned in the initial post but in a community like ours respect of its members and the success you bring to your clients should be the only pat-on-the-back you need.
There are a lot of great points made from many different angles here. There are opportunities for all to learn. Developers can learn more as matt inertia points out. Rodney Riley mentions how many functional folks are just thrust into SEO responsibilities.
It's easy to see how the SEO field is made up of a hodge podge of folks with varying SEO skillsets. Ultimately I think the marginal talents will work themselves out of the business. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.
I only wonder what the punishment will be to those who falsely advertise their SEO prowess. Is the punishment a fierce Google bomb for "SEO failure?"
While I agree with the first two bullet points, however requiring peer validation (and the eventual seo certifications) just won't hit home with people who serve the seo industry or call themselves SEOs. SEO simply cannot be standardized while search engines continue to operate without many guidelines to help a website along in improving its natural rankings.
A person with a solid SEO background don't like to brown nose, nor do they need to, because they should already have established businesses operating on the side that draws in a healthy income. Unless they are in the beginning stages of drumming up new business.
Most SEO's are pretty self sufficient and see the true value of cranking out projects that dominate natural search where they are the business owners after servicing clients for a length of time.
My 2 cents.
I don't know Rand. This could be a slippery slope. What community of peers? Wouldn't the proof be in the pudding? Shouldn't someone have to show past successes?
I optimize my own, son's and a few sites. I have had a degree of success (page 1 results locally for some, nationally for my site) but I do not yet consider myself an SEO expert - I'm learning and may one day. I know the time I spend is extensive and has results so at what point am I worthy of pay?
Hmmm great article Rand.....gave me something to think about especially as we're strong proponents of your #3 item....we test and analyze on a weekly basis....and find that hitting a 'moving target' is still quite a chore!
Oh, and after reading Jill Whalen's "SEO boondoggle" column and then yours, it gave us something to really ponder....
Thanks (as usual) for making us reflect on what we do!:-)Jim
Two main thoughts:
NO - you can be an 'SEO' as a freelancer. Its results driven.
To follow on your first point at the agency level:
How do you create crediblity for yourself as a SEO if that agency doesn't allow you to brand yourself online as being part of their SEO team?
I'm experiencing this right now to where I am not allowed to share any of the great SEO work that I've done or mention who I work for in any social networking activity I participate in.
To get around this I have started to optimize my own personal branded webiste/blog to create credibilty as a SEO in the online community.
Although I can't share the work that I've done at my agency I will be able to create and share great SEO content that I can personally optimize and test myself!
A personal branded website/blog is a great way to get around this if you are experience the same problem at your organization!
I think that getting your own site/brand up is a wise decision. Though you're gaining valuable experience, your personal brand is limited in that situation.
You would think that your SEO agency would be happy to put as many human "faces" on their company profile as possible.
Unfortunately the suits are sometimes short-sighted, in focusing only on the company brand, not the individual talent they employ.
Good luck with the blog!
As someone with the "official" job title of SEO specialist and someone who just now began trying to branch out into her own SEO business, I am still finding my feet and balance in the SEO world. I sometimes think "So...what makes me so special? What allows me to call myself an SEO? I don't have an "SEO degree" or a foothold in the SEO community". Then I remember that nobody has an SEO degree of any sort and when it comes to that foothold - well, I don't have one yet.
Rand, I think anyone that has dealt with client after client that has been screwed over by their "SEO Company" gets irritated. I see it way too much and it really isn't fair, especially in today's economy. What people offer as "SEO Services" is not SEO services. Sadly, those companies actually believe it is. Of course there are those that just suck at it or are lazy and/or they don't give a crap about their clients.
When I mentioned some sort of certification on Sphinn I was ripped to shreds by some of the industry experts, but I think something is needed.
One other thing, I have looked at all the "certifications" that are crazy amounts of money, but the question is why would I take the time and spend the money to listen to what I live and breathe every day?
I think established SEOs should be given a basic book and a test that none of the non-seo companies could possibly pass. You pass if you keep up, if you don't you don't pass. And I don't think I need to shell out $5,000 to take it [I am cheap except for cars, purses and jeans :-)].
Spell out what will benefit me if I take the certification, none of the current sites do. A link from their site isn't worth it to me.
I've been doing SEO for about 7 months now. I'm far from being any kind of expert on the subject but I've had some break through and I'm proud of the position I'm in. I highly agree that SEO is not just marketing to Google. There are so many different focuses and the possibilities seem endless.
Here is my website Bean Stalk Solar Hosting
Isn't that what being a proffessional is all about: carrying out all duties to the best attainable level towards a valuable end results that is exchangeable for and deserving of recompense?
Personally, I think some type of professional certification in SEO would be helpful. I actually did a bit of research on this topic a few months ago, and was somewhat underwhelmed at the few formal programs I could find. Then it dawned on me- isn't one of the real challenges with creating SEO certifications the fact that the actual algorithms are such closely-guarded secrets?
In other professions, much (although not all) of the required skills can be measured against fixed criteria. With SEO, most of know which elements contribute the most value, but it's difficult to precisely measure results among similar tactics. So wouldn't that make testing for certification problematic?
Maybe SEOMoz will lead the charge on creating an industry-wide certification for us. :-)
This is very interesting and helpful.....
I think I'm on the right track by reading SEOmoz blog articles. I decided to learn about SEO to help our Onesuite blog gain more visitors and hits.
I've been here at SEOmoz all day and I'm trying to process these SEO informations one by one, step by step and hopefully I can apply it and gain some positive results.
Thanks Rand for sharing these.
Once again, Rand proves that he is the REAL voice of the SEO industry. Thank you very much Rand for writing this post and taking this public!
Certification is not the way to go, to be honest Rand if you make certification and start making money then every major player will.
Become SEOmoz certified, become Andy Beal Marketing Piligrim SEMvendor certified, etc.
I think the key to this problem is getting some main stream exposure, some real news group to cover something of the sort, an expose on fraudulent and real SEO work.
Things like this take time, having just started to get into SEO about 4 months ago (I was hired as a blogger and now I do SEO/Online Reputation Management/SEO Copywriting and Blogging) just shows anyone can pick this work up. Same as website development, if you can learn it and like it, you can get a job doing it.
SEO is a rather new industry and in time the snake oil and the true facts will sort themselves out, it's pretty much a waiting game IMO.
Marketing is key for SEO, and for all other aspects of online marketing.
By this I don't mean the all too frequent understanding of marketing as being promotion. For those that understand marketing, they will know that strategy is just as important as the other 3 (or 6) Ps.
Combine true marketing with innovation, use this to formulate your strategy, frame it in sound operational execution, and you have a winner.
Great Post Rand and excellent comments.
Having been doing SEO for quite some time now, I feel it takes a special kind of person to do what it takes to implement changes within an organisation to reap the benefits of SEO (I must admit the challenge exponentially grow based on the size of the company).
An SEO needs the following traits/skills:
- A News PresenterBy this I mean, you have to be able to tell a compelling story about the current state of the companies website. You have to present how bad the situation is and how well the competition is doing. This way it grabs peoples attention and leads to action.
- An EducatorAs an SEO you need to constantly reading blogs like SEOMoz, SearchEngineLand, Bruce Clay etc... You need to digest then see how you can apply SEO best practise and last developments. Once you figure that out you need to train internal Web Developers / Agencies folk to implement the changes.
- An Influencer and NegotiatorPresenting a case and then educate people are important, but the real gold lie in influencing and negotiating to get the Dev teams to implement the fixes. A SEO must have good people skills.
Final point, I think SEO needs to have a good balance between the right and left brains. 1 side of the brain is analytical (all about the details, technical things, measurement and analysis), the other side is all about creativity. The creative side is around content, keyword research and expansion, thinking outside the box....
PS> Thanks Rand for posting, I've been looking for the right place to put my thoughts that have been floating around in my head for months. Thanks, Mark
A very notable point.
Do we care about SEO? Do we care about the broader SEM? Is SEM encompassing enough to cover all online marketing?
There are super agencies who can cover development (yea, you must build sites in an appropriate manner for human and bot or you must stop building sites), linking, copy, design, usability, advertising, public relations and the list just goes on.
Early in my career, we would fight over sales being a marketing channel or marketing existing to serve sales. Both had quasi-certifications. No, a marketing degree means you studied theory and concepts and did a bitchin' project or two.
Peer review is nice, but we're an inbred industry as so many relativley small industries are. Word of mouth is key, especially in my company's small business segment. I get phone calls every week from someone saying, "I am so-and-so's friend and my company needs..."
But the nonsensical testing from every company, be it an engine like Yahoo! or the freelance sites, mean little. When I think about non-web industries that are still regulated, they thrive on word-of-mouth. Consider:
hair salons
insurance agencies
chiropractors
They're all regulated. But no one (okay, Angie's List and other UGC not included) assigns a grade and says George's Insurance Agency is a certified as so-and-so. That agency makes it in this world because of the recommendation I get when I call a friend and say, "We just bought a boat, and I'm shopping my insurance company. Do you have someone you like?"
Hi Rand,
Here's an easy benchmark for the credibility test
There is a one great query to expose all the amateurs. For those of you who know linkedin you may know why just from the Google query below
[site:linkedin.com/in SEO "my company"]
hmm, 2,370 names on the list
this next one produces only 4 - ha and they are all friends :) sorry guys to expose you like this.
[site:linkedin.com/in SEO "my company" "my blog" seomoz]
doh!!
just having fun Hamlet, Gab and Rand!
Results are always going to be the best benchmark for credibility.
There are many certifications in the web development and IT world, but in my 6 years of owning a web development business, it has never been a reliable gauge of skillset.
Well, you're right that it's not necassary, but it's always a plus to be able to prove yourself in a certain field ....I've landed projects myself that I would never have if I wasn't certified ... Many companies specifically like to know the level of education, simply cause of the fact that many people make themselves out to be experienced SEO's, while they are not ...
Great post Rand
It would be very interested to see some certification being formed by the community, so then every SEOer can be evaluated.
I think a lot of "SEO's" read and write a lot about SEO but don't neccesserily do any of the work. If you've never been in the trenches and done the link building yourself or if you've never had to answer to a bunch of clients that want to see results then you're not an SEO...at least not a successful one. Anyone can call themselves anything, but being good at something is what sets apart the men from the boys.
I think your three ways of defining an SEO are quite accurate, all with, i think, equal weights. There's no point shouting about how great you are at SEO without the technical evidence and the results to back it up. It's also no good if your peers are of differing (and valid) opinions.
As a community, with how often and rapidly the world of SEO is changing, applying set rules or qualifications would be short-sighted. I think it's better to have a basic set of guidelines that will consistently get basic results (ie meta tags) and then go with the flow, expanding out knowledge and skill sets as SEO evolves and takes new shapes.
Well, Anybody can claim to be anything, if there is no external qualification. While there will always be those who can 'talk a good Job', I'd imagine most people will judge an SEO on thier results and understanding.
I agree on the criteria, but I'd also add in responsibility for the Search results (traffic and/or rankings). Many dev's for instance satisfy the practising criteria, but aren't driving the strategy.
"even intellecutally dishonest"
:)
A Client: I rank, therefore, I am.
An SEO: I make you rank, therefore, I am.
A bar of soap: I make rank less offensive.
This question is for Rand!
So I've been struggling on calling myself "a SEO" or "an SEO."
I noticed this blog uses "an SEO." For me using "an SEO" seems to flow better.
Did you do that because "a SEO" is more competative than "an SEO" or is it more personal preference on how you write it?
I always wondered how everyone perfers to write it out!
There are 2 schools of thought on 'a' vs 'an' before an abbreviation that exist based on:
I prefer 'an SEO', because this is how I say it. Others argue that it's 'a SEO' because the first word in the abbreviation is a 'search'.
Both seem to be acceptable by grammar gurus as long as you're consistant with whichever form you adopt.
That was an great question though! j/k
Really it's very helpful to me. Thanks for this resource!
What we need (maybe) is an independant body to represent us all. It would have to be world wide (as is the nature of our globalised industry) and it would have to be formed from a selection of companies, individuals or organisations who were highly trusted by the industry. You would then need to establish that body as the recognised authority on the matter, enough for people to say:
"i've got a new SEO"
"oh yeah? are they "SEO-ICC" approved?"
"yeah, to level 3"
"oh sweet, you know theyre cool then"
That sort of thing goes on a lot in other industries so why not with us!?
p.s. I call the UK arm!
I agree. Possibly with a membership that would require some level of testing on a semiyearly basis.
ok here you go i figgured it out. seomoz as one of the leading seo websites could introduce a seo certification program then you could really call yourself seo.
seomoz id liek at least a little $$$ for comign up with the idea
Don't tempt him...I will bet $1000 its been discussed alreday in the Moz boardroom. Rand would probably charge $5000 just to sit the exam (joke).
We have, indeed, covered this topic internally at SEOmoz, but have decided to focus much more on the tools and software side of SEO for the long term. I do think MarketMotive.com has a compelling product around certification.
a transition I am seeing these days is that there are alot of college programs out there that are beginning to touch base on SEO and e-marketing in general.
Schools like University of WA are actually offering classes called New Media Concepts which mostly revolves around blogging but I have seen the curriculum and it does skim the tops of SEO and SEM. This is a huge transition.
I am wondering if somewhere down the road, there will be a specific focus within majors that is solely based on web marketing. Will this become a standard certificate? If so, will it solve the problem at hand? Probably not...but definitely an interesting thing to think about.
I agree with you Mgete. I also noticed that more and more colleges are starting to include seo and online marketing. The question is the same as mentioned by others here; how do you set the standars and who will be "qualified" to certify.
Tough call. I'm personal friends with the professor who teaches the curriculum. She happens to be a writer on a very popular blog btw.
But when it come to SEO/SEM, she probably would not be the best qualified person to do so...
Maybe there is a place for SEO's as professors one day!
Perhaps, rather than accreditation or certification, in the free-market economy that we live in and make our living from...let the market decide who is an SEO and how good they are...
And what market?
Go to Google and type in the search box "SEO" or "search engine optimization" (or search engine optimisation here in Australia and elsewhere)...and see who turns up on page 1...
Based on the principle that if an SEO can get to page 1 in a highly, highly competitive space such as ours for highly competitive keywords, and drive lots of leads and revenues sourced from online, then they might just be OK...add in a few keyword extensions such as "consultants", "firms", "company" etc to refine the selection process a bit...and then some industry-specific niches...insurance, cakes or plumbers even...
As we live by the sword, so should we die by the sword based on our ability to deliver results...for us, yes...but more importantly for our clients...
(Will now duck for cover ;))
I like your post and I agree with you.
I also wrote about peer review and seo:
https://www.scienceforseo.com/seo-marketing/peer-review-for-seo/
I think that creating certifications or degrees or whatever isn't the solution. There are bad doctors and bad dentists and all sorts and they have degrees.
This was an interesting offering from the academic world:
https://www.scienceforseo.com/social-networks/masters-degree-in-social-media/
The big problem in SEO (for me) is that the professionals like to blog, comment, communicate, share information...a lot of this information (not all some is very very good) isn't researched, evaluated, or verified and so things that are quite frankly idiotic circulate and suddenly become law and complete truths.
There are people with common sense out there who have realised that the things being claimed are unlikely and they are not SEOs. They mistrust the profession and who can blame them?
It's partly due to the fact that so many blog to be heard and seen rather than to actually be part of the conversation.
Maybe there should be a kind of regulation for spreading news and gossip and we need a blogging police force :)
The big problem in SEO (for me) is that the professionals like to blog, comment, communicate, share information...a lot of this information (not all some is very very good) isn't researched, evaluated, or verified and so things that are quite frankly idiotic circulate and suddenly become law and complete truths. There are people with common sense out there who have realised that the things being claimed are unlikely and they are not SEOs. They mistrust the profession and who can blame them?
Pardon me while I play devil's advocate for one second. I do share this problem as well and many times, the blogs I follow are considered "legitimate" within the SEO industry. However, if you recall a couple weeks ago, the thread on PR sculpturing/nofollows, a debate started amongst some members regarding this issue. It got me thinking...
While I've found SEOMoz to be a trusted source...should I always follow what I assume to be a legitimate source of information? Do I dare question that of even people like Rand Fishkin?! The answer is YES.
So where do you cross that line? Distinguish what you should believe and what you shouldn't?
A great Post