I’ve published numerous articles and received feedback that’s been both positive and negative as can be expected in this industry but I have to say…
…I’ve never had criticism of my work placed on such notable blogs as MarketingPilgrim.com before (Ironically I used Andy from Marketing Pilgrim as an example of a good SEO in the article)
It appears that SEO’s are a bit disguntled by my assertion in the article I published yesterday that one of the things you should look for in an SEO is that they be able to rank for their targeted phrases. This doesn’t seem to me to be a big leap of logic.
One of the big problems appears to be based on misinterpretation. I’m not sure how or where the critics believe me to be saying that all good SEO’s should be able to rank for “seo” or “search engine optimization”. I never said that. In fact, what I wrote was:
- “… Too often when I take a look at the SEO’s website and research their targeted phrases (usually pretty obvious when you look at the title and heading tags) I find that they don’t even rank for their own phrases.”
What I’m trying to say is that a good SEO should have done their research, figured out how to target their phrases and which they could rank for, and then do that. If you’re an SEO focusing on real estate your phrase could well be “seo for real estate agents”. The key is that you should be able to do for yourself what’s you’re claiming you can do for others.
For me to say that a good SEO should be able to rank for one of the two phrases noted above is a bit silly. There are a number of good SEO’s out there and only ten spots on the first page of Google. Fortunately there are a good number of phrases available.
I write this as the article is getting picked up on more and more sites now and I really don’t want to have to reply to each and every post attacking my stance. I stick by it and if you can’t rank your own site for your targeted phrases (WHATEVER THEY MAY BE) then I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree.