Over-Reporting in SEO

I’ve spent the morning going over some reports for a new client. The reports were generated by a fairly well known firm in the SEO/M space. In among the usual ranking and keyword reports was a very pretty chart the computed an optimazation score for the client site as well as several competitors. The score was calcualted by rating the sites in a variety of categories and then adding up the ratings for an overal score. The idea being that the higher your score is the better optimized you are and if logic follows…the better you rank. Well, the client site was the highest scoring site which leads me to wonder about the accuracy of such a system since the client site is not nearly the highest ranking site in the pack. Should being static vs. dynamic carry the same weight having more links or having alt tages or proper title tags? Of course not. At a simple glance you can see that utter uselessness of this report. This begs 2 questions:

  • 1. Why waste the time even generating this report other than to bury the client in ‘cool’ paperwork?
  • 2. What project manager sent this out without looking at it and realizing it doesn’t jive with reality for this client?

Comments

  1. Adam C says:

    I’ve seen some terrible reports produced by SEO companies in my time.

    In one project where we were promoting a client’s European sites and one of the high profile US SEO companies was doing the .com, we were asked to use the other SEO’s report as a template as “that is what they were used to”.

    It was total shite with similar SEO scores and meaningless Excel graphs all over the place.