SEO Services

kanky

Hi Guys,

I have another thread over in the business forum looking for SEO services. I have received some messages and have seen people recommend others. However, when I look at their site and run it through, http://validator.w3.org/, not one of them comes up without errors or warnings.

I just find it a bit disconcerting that they would be offering SEO, website optimisation when their website has a couple of things that could be fixed.

Anybody any thoughts on this? Or is it irrelevant?

Regards,

David.

Matrix Internet Web Design

kanky wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I have another thread over in the business forum looking for SEO services. I have received some messages and have seen people recommend others. However, when I look at their site and run it through, http://validator.w3.org/, not one of them comes up without errors or warnings.

I just find it a bit disconcerting that they would be offering SEO, website optimisation when their website has a couple of things that could be fixed.

Anybody any thoughts on this? Or is it irrelevant?

Regards,

David.

Hi David,

I can't speak for anyone else, but just to allay your concerns on our side, we are actually just right in the middle of a complete website redesign, so instead of making all the changes needed to the existing site, we are going to just get everything in place for the new one. We are busy with client projects but hoping to get the new website launched in the next couple of weeks.

Cheers

kanky

Thanks for that.

I wasn't directing that comment at you in particular.

One SEO and marketing crowd suggested that I consider a complete site redesign, as to increase click through rate. However, when I checked their site, they had errors.

It's all a bit confusing really, it seems like everybody claims to have the inside scoop and follow best practice. Even if they are suggesting completely different approaches to the work that's requested.

Matrix Internet Web Design

kanky wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I wasn't directing that comment at you in particular.

One SEO and marketing crowd suggested that I consider a complete site redesign, as to increase click through rate. However, when I checked their site, they had errors.

It's all a bit confusing really, it seems like everybody claims to have the inside scoop and follow best practice. Even if they are suggesting completely different approaches to the work that's requested.

Oh, I know - I know you only meant it in general.

If you send me your website URL over PM, I can do a quick review. In most cases, unless the site is very bad and/or really outdated, we would usually recommend updating the design and making certain tweaks to improve the overall design, look and feel and usability. It really depends, but you can achieve a lot from modest changes as well - combined with some informed online marketing work.

I'd be happy to give my take on what you are looking to achieve, if you want to send me some further quick details.

forbairt

To be honest I wouldn't worry too much about validation.
I used be incredibly hung up on it (at the end of the day the only people that care are other web developers). What I'd check is ...

1: How does the company you're looking at rank for SEO.
2: Check their client sites and what keywords they are ranking well for.
3: Ping their clients asking if they are happy and have seen a return.

tricky D

kanky wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I have another thread over in the business forum looking for SEO services. I have received some messages and have seen people recommend others. However, when I look at their site and run it through, http://validator.w3.org/, not one of them comes up without errors or warnings.

I just find it a bit disconcerting that they would be offering SEO, website optimisation when their website has a couple of things that could be fixed.

Anybody any thoughts on this? Or is it irrelevant?

Regards,

David.

Don't worry much about perfect validation. Google doesn't care about it (unless it so appalingly bad that it makes the site unreadable for spiders).

What I would worry about is companies purporting to offer SEO services using bad practices such as keyword spamming title tags and meta keywords and alt attributes and misusing description tags. /Looks squarely at a poster in this thread.

forbairt's list is a good guide but I wouldn't stress point 1 due to the nature and volume of the competition.

Matrix Internet Web Design

tricky D wrote: »

Don't worry much about perfect validation. Google doesn't care about it (unless it so appalingly bad that it makes the site unreadable for spiders).

What I would worry about is companies purporting to offer SEO services using bad practices such as keyword spamming title tags and meta keywords and alt attributes and misusing description tags. /Looks squarely at a poster in this thread.

forbairt's list is a good guide but I wouldn't stress point 1 due to the nature and volume of the competition.

Hi tricky D,

Feel free to look squarely away. I've already explained why the meta-tags and attributes are the way they are. I have actually come on board relatively recently, while I have SEO expertise, the site is very old and I am imparting that expertise to different people within the agency.

It's about what you can do for your clients and your experience in the field - I'm sure you will find any number of web design / SEO agency websites which less than perfect SEO. They are probably too busy working on behalf of their clients too be overly focused on their own sites.

I do take your point though, and I fully agree with it. The site needs to be updated. Just now need to get our developers to launch the damn new site for once and for all!

Cheers

TsuDhoNimh

tricky D wrote: »

Don't worry much about perfect validation. Google doesn't care about it (unless it so appalingly bad that it makes the site unreadable for spiders).

Big +1.

Valid code is great in that it shows that a sites code is clean and therefore should be easy to crawl and parse, but it's not 'required' and having perfectly valid code won't help to increase your rankings.

As long as the site doesn't throw up crawl errors and doesn't cause compatibility issues with various web browsers, valid code isn't a major concern, issue or benefit.

tricky D wrote: »

... using bad practices such as keyword spamming title tags and meta keywords and alt attributes and misusing description tags.

Matrix Internet Web Design wrote: »

I'm sure you will find any number of web design / SEO agency websites which less than perfect SEO. They are probably too busy working on behalf of their clients too be overly focused on their own sites.

There's a big difference between 'perfect SEO' and spamming/breaking of guidelines.

I'm all too happy to agree with 'too busy working on behalf of their clients' when it comes to many elements of SEO, but when it's in terms of adherence to the basic guidelines... that just doesn't wash.

I understand you came on board relatively recently, so it's a legacy issue from the previous owners and others within the business, but it still should be priority number one. If you haven't already taken the time to do a "We need to resolve these issues as a priority. We're currently breaching the webmaster guidelines in relation to:...", I'd highly suggest doing one.

You're already taking the time to try and impart knowledge and expertise in those working around you, so you can even sugar coat the proposal in terms of it being an opportunity for them to learn. The bottom line is if your own business doesn't view adherence to the guidelines as important, trying to sell that service to a client becomes a very difficult task. Taking the time now, ASAP, to resolve these issues before they lead to penalties or deindexing is the only correct course of action. Anything else, regardless of the reasoning or excuses that you or anyone else within the business try and put forward, is a mistake without question.

Matrix Internet Web Design

TsuDhoNimh wrote: »

Big +1.

Valid code is great in that it shows that a sites code is clean and therefore should be easy to crawl and parse, but it's not 'required' and having perfectly valid code won't help to increase your rankings.

As long as the site doesn't throw up crawl errors and doesn't cause compatibility issues with various web browsers, valid code isn't a major concern, issue or benefit.



There's a big difference between 'perfect SEO' and spamming/breaking of guidelines.

I'm all too happy to agree with 'too busy working on behalf of their clients' when it comes to many elements of SEO, but when it's in terms of adherence to the basic guidelines... that just doesn't wash.

I understand you came on board relatively recently, so it's a legacy issue from the previous owners and others within the business, but it still should be priority number one. If you haven't already taken the time to do a "We need to resolve these issues as a priority. We're currently breaching the webmaster guidelines in relation to:...", I'd highly suggest doing one.

You're already taking the time to try and impart knowledge and expertise in those working around you, so you can even sugar coat the proposal in terms of it being an opportunity for them to learn. The bottom line is if your own business doesn't view adherence to the guidelines as important, trying to sell that service to a client becomes a very difficult task. Taking the time now, ASAP, to resolve these issues before they lead to penalties or deindexing is the only correct course of action. Anything else, regardless of the reasoning or excuses that you or anyone else within the business try and put forward, is a mistake without question.

Agreed. However, my previous point still stands. We have gotten - and can get - results for clients, regardless of the meta-tags on our site (which are all up to date on our new site, which is waiting to go).

We've only just gotten an inquiry from a client via Boards this morning.

So while as mentioned, I take your point - it doesn't have a bearing on the results we can achieve, and have achieved, for our clients.

TsuDhoNimh

Matrix Internet Web Design wrote: »

...which are all up to date on our new site, which is waiting to go

It shocks me a little that the business is willing to put the new site, which I'm assuming has been a relatively serious investment, at risk with the breaches on the old site. If you trip an algorithmic penalty with it, or even a manual penalty, it will take some time to recover. It'd make far more sense to rip the breaches off the site (it wouldn't take long, even 20 minutes of your time and then a dogs body to run through the guides you give them), which may cause a slight fluctuation in your results, until such time that you're ready to launch the new site.

Matrix Internet Web Design wrote: »

We've only just gotten an inquiry from a client via Boards this morning.

Your ability to land clients and your ability to do things correctly are two very different things. I can point you to thousands of extremely questionable providers or outright cowboys that could land a client via boards any morning.

Matrix Internet Web Design wrote: »

So while as mentioned, I take your point - it doesn't have a bearing on the results we can achieve, and have achieved, for our clients.

It doesn't. You could achieve excellent results, potentially, even if you didn't have your own site. That isn't the point we're trying to make. We're making the point that in terms of branding your own business and making sure you can land informed clients it's shooting yourselves in the foot (I can't say I've a personal interest in your business success, so if you're happy with that as a business that's your call to make).