Quote:
Originally Posted by OldWelshGuy
This isn't a rant, and there IS a point here, and that is that MANY designers are possibly braking the law and leaving themselves open to legal action for recovery of money paid.
The sale of goods act states that goods must be fit for the purpose for which they were intended. If a design company supplies a website that is unspiderable, then I would argue that it is not fit for purpose. Whether it ranks or not is irrelevant, the 'fitness' i would say is sarch engine friendliiness. A clear example of this is a site where the page title and description are sitewide. This WILL harm a site.
|
It's educating people that the contract has to stipulate EXACTLY how SEO is approached in the design, otherwise what have the designers done wrong. I'm in discussion with a guy who says that his designer is sorting out SEO, but when pushed he has no idea what that really means, and like you suggest feels that because he is spending x amount it must be good and doesn't want another big spend.
I have just started on a site with uniform page title and description and stuffed keywords meta. At least it's a blank canvas.
A gripe of mine is the unwillingness of many businesses to work at new fresh content on a regular basis.
Mick