Better WMT communication. Would SEO / Site accreditation help ?

[Whitey]

Google's gone a long way further than any smaller competitors, but I think that communication with the big G for solving issues sucks [ respectfully ] and the industry has , in some quarters a poor perception of credibility & reputation [ often does when lack of knowledge occurs ].

If you engage an SEO, many can tell you anything and it often leaves you scratching your heads [ what's true / what's not ] , Google guidelines are in many areas not black and white , system breakdowns and experiment at the Plex can interfere etc etc.

On the other hand thousands, if not millions of folks often have elementary questions, that just need community discussion or being pointed to the right guidelines which Google can't be expected to service or support individually. So threads and good inputs can help a lot , but there's a lot of mis information from self accredited experts.

Siteowners often sit on filters and penalties for an eternity, which can't be good for Google or the siteowner. In fact i think it extremely harsh. So what about improving the process to help the democratisation and better management of the web.

Would accrediting SEO's and associating them with websites in WMT help , under the normal privacy provisions , - put professional reputations on the line ?

Would accrediting site owners in conjunction with their SEO's help ?

Would it be better for reconsideration requests to come from, or in conjunction with this profiled information in WMT.

Can anybody see how a better system of managing communication for more effective Google compliance that could work for all ?

[tedster]

I don't see that improved communication can come from the side of either the SEO or the website owner. To have a GWT account, the person who sets it up must validate their responsibility for the site. That's as good as it needs to get.

In addition to GWT, you've also got Google Groups for specific site feedback, and sometimes the engineers who respond there are surprisingly forthcoming.

Google either is or is not willing to give explicit information about a penalty or filter as it impacts a given site. Their motives in reserving the right to say nothing are understandable, even if the lack of feedback can be frustrating.

[Whitey]

sometimes the engineers who respond there are surprisingly forthcoming

Indeed , but they aren't able to help everyone, and those in support vary in skills. Adsense has some form of accreditation doesn't it ?

[tedster]

You're thinking of the Adwords Certified Professional program - but what a difference there is, and it's an essential, at the root difference, between an Adwords consultant and an SEO consultant.

[Whitey]

Could such an accreditation work with SEO then ? At least to the level of "known facts" .

Good training , good support for Google that puts a professional underpinning in place for users Worldwide to refer to and of course be paid. That would weed out a lot of the repetitive questions and also allow website owners to refer to their accredited SEO's for work carried out, if indeed they engaged an SEO.

Just as Adwords can be managed by a professional, so to could SEO - albeit within "known" limits.

Presumably, then the guidelines would be better followed.

I'm sure it's been thought of, but since it doesn't earn money directly, maybe it was considered a low priority.

This then begs the question, how best to communicate on the balance of unknown / unanswered things, which we all know , as you put it Tedster, is , "frustrating". The reconsideration request is mostly one way traffic [ in terms of communication ] , but if requests came via a recognised account manager who had complied with the Guidelines , then the credibility of the request and intent might be better received for a reply [ even if google exercised it's right to remain silent on sensitive matters].

I'm unfamiliar with the support process for Adsense and Adwords, but for those who know it well i wonder if there are lessons that could be adapted from them.

[edited by: Whitey at 2:04 pm (utc) on Oct. 3, 2008]