17 replies to this topic

[BrianR]

I've been having a discussion with Alan over in the 'Is All Seo Spam?' topic which touched on usability, and it occured to me that I've never tried to define the skill base of an SEO. Do we have one? What's the minimum requirements?

Or does a client need a web-savvy copywriter, website designer, html coder, usability expert, and an SEO in order to get the desired result of high rankings, relevant traffic, great conversion to sale?

Anyone care to start the ball rolling??

BrianR

[qwerty]

I suppose you couldn't call yourself an SEO if you weren't capable of fixing spidering issues -- that is, making sure an SE spider could get through a site, indexing all the pages you want indexed and getting the keywords in there properly so that the pages will show up well for those terms. I'd also say that choosing the proper keywords is definitely the SEO's job.

Anything beyond that, e.g. copywriting, ppc, usability, are good and important skills to have, but they can certainly be taken care of by other experts. The absence of those skills aren't a valid reason, IMO, to say that a person is not an SEO.

[BrianR]

Nice starter for 10, qwerty - and congrats on 1,000 posts!

BrianR

[SearchRank]

Interesting that this is starting all over again! :laugh:

Anyway IMO an SEO is one who optimizes a web site so that it will have the best chance to obtain good rankings in the SERPs. This includes optimizing things like title tags, meta tags, alt tags, body content, internal link structure and web site usability.

The initial stage is to identify which keywords or phrases one wants to target or more importantly which ones are the most relevant to the business and people are actually searching for, and then optimize all of the elements I mentioned above.

This can include the home page of a site as well as some or all of the sub pages of a site. It can involve database generated product pages as well. It really depends upon how many keyword or phrases one wishes to target as well as how much the client wants to pay for the time that it takes to tackle all of these elements.

SEO is just one aspect of search engine marketing (SEM). SEM as a whole encompasses not only SEO but also link popularity enhancement, directory submissions, pay for inclusion management (PFI), pay per click management (PPC) and site sponsorships.

An SEO should either have some copywriting skills or at least have access to someone who specializes in that area providing that the copy of a web site needs optimization.

They should have some knowledge of website design and html because many times they will be working on a client's site.

They should have some experience in usability because if the site provides a horrid end user experience it won't matter how many top rankings are obtained if customers or sales are not acquired. All SEM efforts will be in vain!

Finally if an SEO is to be effective, they have to have a good understanding of how search engines work. They have to be able to keep up on the constant changes that take place in the search engine industry. This in itself is a full time job!

[Alan Perkins]

There is a difference between "What is SEO?" and "What is an SEO?".

I agree that SEO is part of SEM. Most forms of marketing, however, require a site to be complete before marketing it. The interesting thing about SEO is that it almost inevitably involves changing the site in order to market it.

IMO the only aspects of SEO that are uniquely SEO issues are

1) Robots.txt file
2) Meta data creation, tagging, streaming (i.e. meta tags, trusted feed, etc.)
3) Submission (free/paid submission to search engines/directories)
4) Traffic analysis from search engines/directories

IMO pretty much everything else that an SEO does either

A) should have been done by somebody else properly the first time round, or
B) is a hybrid job that couldn't be defined as uniquely related to search engines

In practice this means that an SEO has to be a jack-of-all-trades and a master of as many as possible ... but that many of those "trades" are not SEO.

[Scottie]

I have seen many sites that have obviously been "optimized for the search engines" but were not optimized for visitors or selling.

What a waste!

True, bolied down to the basics, SEO is only about taking the site and fixing things that could prevent indexing and maximizing the keyphrase in key points on the page. To Alan's list, I would add keyword research and possibly linking campaigns.

I'm not sure I agree traffic analysis is the job of an SEO... if they don't know much about marketing, they aren't going to draw many conclusions other than "this term draws traffic and this one doesn't". OK- maybe it is part of the job but someone who only is interested in traffic will only see a small fraction if the picture.

You can argue that a client hires an SEO to get better rankings and increase traffic. I would say a client hires an SEO to get a better return out of their website. Why would anyone want traffic to a site that can't be navigated and is confusing and doesn't sell anything?

I agree with Alan- the "other" skills are not search engine optimization or search engine marketing. They are website optimization. The more an SEO knows about all aspects of design, usability, copywriting, and marketing, the better they will be able to advise their client, even if they don't do those tasks themselves.

[Jill]

I think the role of an SEO is ever-changing.

Traditionally, an SEO was hired for one thing and only one thing, to get high rankings in the search engines.

One might argue that this is all an SEO needs to do and they've done their job. In fact, this is exactly what many SEOs do. Especially the ones using techniques that do not fall within what many of us would consider "best practices."

How much more an SEO does beyond obtaining high rankings varies between the SEOs.

All of that other stuff Scottie and Alan talked about is important, but is it SEO?

It never was before, but it is moving that way now. As I've said in other posts over the past couple of years in various forums, those SEOs who refuse to move into the 21st century and start worrying about all aspects of the site (either themselves or through other professionals they work with) will be lost, or probably already are.

Jill

[bwelford]

It's always a little unfair to take parts of a longer message and then read too much into them. However there were two quotes that made me protest:

Most forms of marketing, however, require a site to be complete before marketing it.

True, bolied down to the basics, SEO is only about taking the site and fixing things that could prevent indexing and maximizing the keyphrase in key points on the page.

I believe the only way to get a selling effective website is to have all skills represented from day one in the process of website development. In particular, that includes the website owner who must have a clear marketing strategy and know what the website is trying to achieve. The reference in my signature elaborates on this.

[Alan Perkins]

True, bolied down to the basics, SEO is only about taking the site and fixing things that could prevent indexing and maximizing the keyphrase in key points on the page. To Alan's list, I would add keyword research and possibly linking campaigns.

Let me explain why they weren't there. It's all subjective and open to interpretation, of course.

Keyword research is actually market research - knowing or discovering the language of your market, so you can write in the same language. You should always do this. It's not really a unique function of SEO. If search engines didn't exist, you should still do this. The fact that search engines do exist provides some extra tools for the task.

Linking campaigns should be done for their intrinsic value. If search engines didn't exist, linking campaigns would be even more important! Online marketing equals links.

I'm not sure I agree traffic analysis is the job of an SEO... if they don't know much about marketing, they aren't going to draw many conclusions other than "this term draws traffic and this one doesn't".  OK- maybe it is part of the job but someone who only is interested in traffic will only see a small fraction if the picture.

The reason I put traffic analysis there is that analysing traffic from search engines goes beyond looking at the referrer, into looking at elements of the referrer - e.g. extracting keywords, syndication channels, etc. - which requires knowledge that you do not need if search engines don't exist.

You see how I'm leaning towards defining SEO as (approximately) those things you need to do solely because search engines exist.

[Alan Perkins]

I believe the only way to get a selling effective website is to have all skills represented from day one in the process of website development.

I agree 100% that this is the best way.

However, it's not the only way. Most SEOs change sites that already exist, rather than become involved in the design process of new sites from day one. The result may be indistinguishable from a site that was designed correctly from the outset, but the means of getting to the result is not the same.

[bwelford]

Most SEOs change sites that already exist, rather than become involved in the design process of new sites from day one. The result may be indistinguishable from a site that was designed correctly from the outset.

Alan, I am guessing this would be the exception, rather than the rule.

The average web designer just loves to put images rather than text. If this is done at the top of the page for some of the key words, then it is very difficult to correct this and be sure it is equally effective for all search engines.

[schecky]

Full understanding of submission guidelines not just what is included on the SE sites. In other words an SEO should be knowledgeable of all info coming out of SES seminars and articles by SE reps about the submission guidelines. IMO, an SEO should know more than what is just on the SE sites.

[BrianR]

This is really fascinating stuff!

A couple of comments on the posts so far...

SEO is just one aspect of search engine marketing (SEM). SEM as a whole encompasses not only SEO but also link popularity enhancement, directory submissions, pay for inclusion management (PFI), pay per click management (PPC) and site sponsorships.

I agree with David that SEO is part of the broader discipline of SEM. But I always thought that the only difference between the two was that SEM included PPC and sponsorships / advertising.

I see link pop, submissions and PFI as part of SEO - which brings me to my next point...

All of that other stuff Scottie and Alan talked about is important, but is it SEO? It never was before, but it is moving that way now. As I've said in other posts over the past couple of years in various forums, those SEOs who refuse to move into the 21st century and start worrying about all aspects of the site (either themselves or through other professionals they work with) will be lost, or probably already are.

I think Jill has hit the nail on the head - don't you get bored with always being right, Jill!? <g>

The people in the SEO industry can argue 'til they're blue in the face about what is and is not included in what has now become the generic term 'search engine optimisation'. But what really matters is what those who are buying SEO think.

Mostly, clients want an increase in sales via their website. And my guess is that many will not know all the separate disciplines which can be exercised to meet that goal. But - and this is where Jill's quote comes in - if an 'SEO' is not taking advantage of ALL of them and offering them to a client as a package, then they are significantly disadvantaging themselves. Because their competitors surely will.

Effectively, SEO has grown up and, in so doing, it has outgrown the term that is used to describe it. Meanwhile, the term SEO has become ingrained in the market's mind - it has become a generic term which we'll find hard to shift. So I guess we just keep expanding the boundaries - allow the term to encompass ever more disciplines.

Anyway, I think I've said more than enough already!

BrianR

[Scottie]

Keyword research is actually market research - knowing or discovering the language of your market, so you can write in the same language.  You should always do this. It's not really a unique function of SEO.  If search engines didn't exist, you should still do this.

Hmnn... I'll agree on the linking campaign being more a marketing role than anything else- if there were no search engines, links would be even more critical (although people would spend more time looking for links that would bring traffic... but that's a topic for another thread ).

But why would you do keyword research if there were no search engines? What point would there be? Writing to your target audience- yes! Definitely. But I wouldn't need to know the exact phrase someone might use and I certainly wouldn't concern myself with how many times it appeared on the page.

I think keyphrase research is uniquely the job of the SEO. Without search engines, there wouldn't be keyphrases, just effective copy or ineffective copy.

For example, I recently worked on a telemarketing site. They didn't want the word "telemarketing" to appear in their site because of negative connotations. If they didn't want search engine traffic for that keyword I could have written some skillful copy that clearly explained their service without using the word. Inbound links and offline marketing could have also driven traffic that was looking for telemarketing services, without ever using the word "telemarketing". Since they do want traffic for that word, they have no choice but to place it in the copy in several places.

Strictly done for the search engines. In my book, that's SEO.

[Dragon]

Although all of the above mentioned is direly important - I feel that it does no good being in the top 10 on the SERP's when you are not bringing in qualified traffic - ie. converting visitors into clients/buyers...?! That to me is where the challenge comes in with SEO & SEM, as this is (should be) the focus of SEO...should it not?