Forum Moderators: open
In the past, I have dealt with this issue by suggesting we measure success based on the increase in site visits - validated by web logs - rather than an increase in SERP rank.
But it seems this "how hard" question will not die. ;)
So I'm wondering, are any of you using rules of thumb, or even MATH, to estimate difficulty?
Let's assume the SEO has skills needed to skillfully modify site content, etc. The question I'm trying to get at is, how to determine, in advance, whether creating a well-optimized site for specific keyphrases is even worth the effort.
Example: "<snip>"
1. # if Results. Google shows 2,520,000 results for this phrase.
Purely based on the number of results, is this a "tough listing" or an "easy" one?
Is there a "Tier 1, Tier 2, etc." approach that can be used to estimate difficulty, where the tiers are based on number of results found? (Tier 1 = 100,000,000+, Tier 2 = 10-100,000,000, etc.)
2. Incoming links to page one sites. Google shows that the first site listed has 158 incoming links, the second 734, etc.
Can one assume that a similar number of incoming links - from similar sites - is required to be on the same page?
Thanks for any input on this run-on post...
[edited by: pageoneresults at 7:46 am (utc) on June 21, 2003]
[edit reason] No specifics please. Thank you. [/edit]
That would be a somewhat "fair" price for your client to pay you for SEO deposit.
The 3 day run will also give you an idea of what type of return to expect.
To be sure I understand, are you essentially saying that a reasonable estimate for SEO work is what someone would pay for 3 months worth of clicks in the #1 spot for the term on Overture?
I like the "real world validation" aspect of this approach.
It's similar in concept to using AdWords or Overture to validate keyword popularity before optimizing (rather than relying on search term suggestion tools).
Thanks!
