The Worst SEO Mistake You Can Make

[KristineS]

According to this blog post, this is the worst SEO mistake you can make:

So what is the worst SEO mistake that a company can make?

The most common mistake that organizations make with regard to SEO is bringing their SEO consultants into the process too late. Many companies fail to give SEO its due consideration during a website’s design phase.

Do you agree or disagree?

[billbenson]

SEO should be done starting at the time you register your domain. You just have to be sure who you choose as a SEO. Ideally you have a designer who is good at SEO depending on the type of site.

[vangogh]

SEO should be part of the design and development phase. If your site isn't built to be search engine friendly the first thing your SEO will want to do is rebuild your site. How you develop code, organize your content, etc impacts your SEO.

Going beyond SEO your marketing should really be included in the process from day 1. It's no longer enough to have a product and then figure out how to market it. You should build marketing into the product itself. You should do research to see if there's a market for your product before building it. You should think about your unique selling point so it can be built into your product. YOu really need to consider marketing as early as possible.

And you need to consider SEO early in the design phase of your site. As someone who offers both design and SEO services, trust me when I tell you it'll cost you a lot less money to build SEO in from the start than it will be to try to tack it on later. It'll also be more effective if you build it in from the start.

[cbscreative]

I think anyone who does SEO will tell you it needs to be planned in from the start, and that's it's much easier and less expensive than to try and do it later. It usually does involve a redesign, but redesign doesn't necessarily mean changing the look. I've done projects where the end result was not too noticably different from the user perspective, but serious (and sometimes expensive) changes needed to be done to make it good for search engines.

[vangogh]

It's the more the development that will need to be changed, but it can also be the information architecture which could mean changing the navigation around and thus changing the look. In general though it's less about changing the look of the site and more about changing the code behind the site, but I have seen where the look does change.

One thing we haven't mentioned yet is choice of domain. You should be thinking marketing when choosing a domain. I think it's best to pick one for branding, but I do like researching keywords prior to choosing a domain. The research often leads to a domain choice.

[graphic3]

when you both say built into the site

your referring to content keywords using tags such as <p>, <h1>, <ol> the basic html tags used appropriately , right?

and using css not so much tables

[theGypsy]

Well, to be honest we're brought in after the fact in most cases... so I am hard pressed to call it 'the biggest mistake'. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to be consulted as part of the initial business development...but that is rare.

To me the worst thing one can do (via DIY SEO or in-house etc..) is hap-hazard link building.

Another common thing is peeps that come to us once they have tanked from the ranks. In most cases, 80%+ it is because of bad link building practices and the mighty G has given them the slap.

So for me, 'bad link buidling practices' are easily near the top if I had to list 'the biggest mistake'.

I can always work the onpage/onsite and build links... getting a site back from the dead... is a long and expensive process.

[KristineS]

So for me, 'bad link buidling practices' are easily near the top if I had to list 'the biggest mistake'.

I can always work the onpage/onsite and build links... getting a site back from the dead... is a long and expensive process.

You certainly have a point. I would think reviving a site would be harder than starting a site out and doing some rebuilding if that's required. Once Google puts the ban of death on a site, I'm guessing there isn't a lot you can do to bring it back.

[theGypsy]

yea, it's no fun... but I used to specialize in dealing with Google penalties.... so bad mistakes become my profit ;o)

It can be a serious problem and take many months to rectify. In the end one has to add plenty of value into the site and high quality links to balance out the link profile.... and ask real nice

Many times it can be as simple as folks that start a new sites and;

Add 300+ Directory links
Add 150+ Article marketing links

And given the query space, that alone over a 3 month period can tank a site....

...and on that topic I did a recent post called; the Link Builders Guide to Historical Ranking factors

... it is one of the more important factors (along with diversity) when crafting a strong link profile.

[cbscreative]

You raise some excellent points, Gypsy. Being consulted from the start is not always the case, but fortunately for me, if I am building a new site, then is is planned from the start. You also have an experience that I have not yet had to deal with: having someone come to you after tanking. I'm sure resurrecting a site is far more difficult. The situations I have dealt with were taking sites from oblivion to page one.

With your question, Graphic3, yes good coding is part of the process. Attention to detail is required to win because sloppiness is rampant, so good coding does stand out. Yes, absolutely do good coding and use tags properly. That is your foundation. Once you have a good foundation, you're ready to build a good site. From there, it's hard work, patience, and time. Quality content is your next step. Once you have quality content, then you need exposure so you get inbound, relevant links. The methods of getting exposure can vary, but you need to make plans that work for your situation.