38 replies to this topic

[energybalance]

I consider myself an SEO expert and get outstanding results across many clients/industris but for various reasons, most of which i believe relates to the b.... Google sandbox, i have a situation where client is being hounded by a specialist SEO firm to enhance SEO strategies.

What do you recommend in relation to giving ftp access to this third party. Is it possible for an SEO expert to submit page amendments and for myself to upload to server myself. I dont distrust the third party but without this SEO issue, I would be unlikely to ever consider giving ftp access to anyone.

btw, fear i have is that as 3rd party starts their project, client will come out of sandbox and 3rd party pats themselves on back. grrrrrrrrr

[dbmasters]

I wouldn't give access, I have been in a similar situation except with a "designer"...I told my client up front that when they hire a designer, have them mock up pages and dice up images, send them to me and I'll add them to the pages. I wrote this client a pretty cool, and pretty sophisticated .Net web application, and the last thing I needed was some photoshop expert going in and breaking it.

My client was very understanding as it related to more money from him to fix what the designer would break.

[Alan Perkins]

client is being hounded by a specialist SEO firm to enhance SEO strategies

I would not give FTP access to an SEO firm that "hounded" a client. That tends to be the wrong kind of SEO firm!

If you know your way around SEO then check what they are proposing to do before you allow them access of any kind.

My client was very understanding as it related to more money from him to fix what the designer would break

Good argument!

[dbmasters]

Also, having to go thru you would be a second layer of opinion, so you can see what they are doing and possibly alert your client to any unethical tactics they want to use...if they are :hounding" your client...well, that's just a red flag to me of them being "one of those firms"

[ewc21]

There must be transparency and documented activity so as to be sure that any event recorded is agreed upon by two parties. Having ftp access is good for some purposes but for SEO I think it's way over the limitations.

[Michael Martinez]

If the access is to the client's site, you must comply with their wishes, regardless of what anyone here or elsewhere thinks. Never be proprietary with someone else's property.

[SearchRank]

If the access is to the client's site, you must comply with their wishes, regardless of what anyone here or elsewhere thinks.  Never be proprietary with someone else's property.

I would disagree. It really depends on what kind of agreement you have with your client. If you are the primary webmaster, the site is on your server, then you can decide who gets access to it. The site should belong to the client but the server is yours (or at least the hosting account). As such it is up to you to decide if you want others to access it or not.

As an SEO, we can develop an SEO strategy and then have someone else implement the changes. We certainly like it better when we are able to have access to the site as it makes updates a much easier and quicker process but at the same time can work with another party, be that a webmaster or the client themselves in getting changes performed on a site.

So back to your issue - if it is your server or your shared hosting account, then you can certainly ask that the SEO send changes through you. That is your decision because it is your hosting environment.

[Michael Martinez]

I would disagree. It really depends on what kind of agreement you have with your client.]

If it's THEIR site, you have no rights of revocation. You seem to misunderstand what I am saying here.

No one can walk in and get a contract with me that forbids me from assigning rights of access to a third-party.

If the site is on my server, it's MY site. If the site is on YOUR server, it's your site -- just sub-leased to me, but your site.

Big difference.

There should be absolutely no confusion on this matter.

If anyone is simply contracting in the capacity of providing Webmaster services, and does not control the ownership of site and server -- that is, if the client owns the site and controls the server -- there is no grounds for refusing to comply with a client request for granting a third party access to the server.

The advice given in this discussion is based on unwarranted assumptions about the nature of the arrangement, and should not have been given without qualification.

This discussion is very dangerous, because energybalance could act on bad advice and lose a contract or, worse, face criminal charges for tampering with or interfering with a computer system (and that is a very real crime, with penalties including up to ten years in prison in the U.S.).

[SearchRank]

We are not talking about who owns the site, we are talking about giving FTP access to a web server that a site is hosted on. I stand by my advice that if a web host does not want a third party accessing their server, that is their right. If they do not even want their client to access their server, that is their right as well unless they specifically stated in a contract somewhere that they would allow them FTP access. If the client doesn't like that, the web host can make an exception or tell them to host their site somewhere else.

Now if the client's site is on their own server or within their own hosting environment and the original designer and/or current webmaster wants to keep the client as well as anyone else the client assigns from FTP access to the site, then that is a different story.

From energybalance's original post however, I gather that they host the site and are now debating whether or not to grant a third party access to the web server. Depending on what kind of hosting arrangement they have with their client, they have the right to say "yes" or to say "no, I'll make the changes myself" because it is their server.

[SearchRank]

If the site is on my server, it's MY site.  If the site is on YOUR server, it's your site -- just sub-leased to me, but your site.

Really? I have developed several client sites which are hosted on my server. Does that mean their sites belong to me? Certainly not!

Their sites belong to them because it is stated as such in my contracts. Their web site; my server. The client is simply leasing space.

[meta]

There should be absolutely no confusion on this matter.

Micheal, there are many things that we don't know here. We don't know what scope of services energybalance is providing, we don't know who owns what, we don't know the details of the agreement with the client, we don't know what the client actually requested. We certainly don't understand the situation well enough to define energybalance's legal obligations.

No matter what the situation legally, energybalance has the right and, some would feel the obligation to work with the client to explore goals and appropriate means of reaching them. It's quite possible that a client who asks that a consultant work on a site may not have had the expectation that the consultant would have direct ftp access, or that the client didn't fully understand the implications of doing that and would appreciate a meaningful discussion of the issues surrounding that approach.

[Michael Martinez]

Their sites belong to them because it is stated as such in my contracts. Their web site; my server. The client is simply leasing space.

Which is pretty much what I said, we're just using "site" and "space" in different ways.

Micheal, there are many things that we don't know here....

Yes, that is my point.

Without seeking further information, or providing careful qualification, several wise and well-intentioned people, whose reponses I generally enjoy reading and appreciate, jumped in with overly generous advice.

Before saying "do this" or "do that", where you have contractual relationships, it's always wise to lay out the ground rules. No one will be able to use "I heard it in an SEO forum" as a defense in court or to salvage a damaged client relationship.

[gerardism]

Hello energybalance,

From your posting I'm assuming that the 3rd party SEO was not hired as of yet, is that correct? If there's a trust issue with this possible company, maybe a bit more research on them regarding their qualifications, do a bit more digging around.

As to granting FTP access, a lot of SEOers like to have access to get thing done faster, but its common for people to not want to give out access for whatever reason. The main thing is having the pages/info updated in a timely manner, this would be the main issue for a lot of SEOers/Firms. Maybe after awhile you see what they're doing and everything seems good, then grant them access later on.

[Jill]

My opinion is that you should voice your concerns to your client. Tell them why you would prefer not to release FTP info and also that you feel you can do the SEO job for them.

But at the end of the day, like Michael said, you don't control the client or their website. If the client wants you to provide the SEO with ftp info and a user login, then I'd say you should do it. Just make sure you have documented your concerns and misgivings if you still have them, so if anything crops up, you'll at least have covered your own rear end.

Jill

[SearchRank]

Which is pretty much what I said, we're just using "site" and "space" in different ways.

No, that is not what you said. You said:

If the site is on my server, it's MY site.  If the site is on YOUR server, it's your site -- just sub-leased to me, but your site.

I am not "sub-leasing" my clients' sites to them. They are renting space on my server in order to host their site.

And I only used "space" once and that was in reference to space on a web server, not a web site.