Steven Kang ๐ It's about time doctors fight back. ๐ How many hours should an SEO have under their belt to be considered an expert? 53 ๐๐ฝ36 ๐คญ8 ๐9963 ๐ฌ๐จ
Glenn Unless the skill in question is new ( i.e less than 5 years since it was a thing) I don't consider anyone an expert unless they've been doing it for at least 5 years as their 40hr/w (minimum) job. The real answer lies in your results and what your customers think though. If you get great results for your customers 90+% of the time and they think you're A1 then isn't that enough to call yourself an expert? Maybe? Very subjective these days. Strauss There are a few people I consider experts in the field, and they are those that share knowledge like it's cool. Whenever I have needed questions answered or things cleared up they have walked me through seeing it from a computational cost perspective, or just a different lens – usually leaving my uneducated mind blown. Altman Most experts are defined by 10,000 hrs. But with SEO its like a week of messing with wix and you are bro-fessional. ๐คญ5 Bagani Installs Yoast = expert ๐คญ2 Ted It shouldn't be based on hoursโฆ it should be based on certified rankings achieved. The certified record should cite volume average Cost Per Click (CPC and date of ranking. The system should somehow prove the Search Engine Optimization (SEO had the access and and achieved the result at the time. Josh
๐๐คญ8 Marko I don't think there are many people who can say they are an expert in Search Engine Optimization (SEO. They might be an SEO expert for a specific niche, but saying someone is an SEO expert would mean he can deliver results regardless of niche, cms, country, business type, and other factors. SEO is not done the same way for e-commerce, user-generated websites, brick and mortar and blogs that get money from affiliates and Adsense. If there is a person that knows everything, he is not in the group. Truslow ๐ It depends upon what they want to be considered an expert at. In a couple of years, a person can develop a pretty good level of expertise in a specific segment of SEO. I don't think I can name more than 5 or 6 people who could be considered a true expert in EVERY aspect of SEO ๐4 Ammon Johns ๐ It's a tough question because 'expert' is a kind of subjective term. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about tech may call you a 'computer expert' because you know how to run a malware detection and removal app and can always remember where you just downloaded a file. I guess a good rule of thumb is that you are an 'expert' if you know more about the subject than all the people who don't consider themselves experts. The bad news in applying this to SEO is that many of the best SEO users I know are people I don't ever recall branding themselves as experts – so you may need to know more than the many folk like SlawskiTruslow, and Duke, before you don't look like a boastful fool in calling yourself an 'SEO expert'. Search Engine Optimization (SEO is still incredibly new and it is still evolving and changing on an almost daily basis. There's so much more to it than any of us have seen yet. Anyone foolish enough to proclaim themselves an SEO expert is kind of like a flea that has spent its life on the ear of a dog, never seeing another dog, nor any other part of the one dog, proclaiming itself a 'dog expert'.
Humphreys I base my authority around client's bottom line growth and accountable to showing real results like direct leads/sales. There's only one instance where I wasn't successful and she didn't even have plumbers working for her (worst referral ever). I don't think it would be reasonable for anyone to call themselves and expert in an industry where there is no clear transparency on what ranking variables are. You operate around best practices and patents hoping to connect the dots. It's often pretty blatant and frankly you should to some extent just understand the intent. Slawski ยป Ammon Johns The question on this post has me thinking about how many hours a week I spend going through newly granted and published patents every week. It is usually enough to deconstruct at least one patent, and often another 3 or 4 patents a week. Only around 4-8 hours more a week until my curiosity has been sated. I've been reading through patents like this every week since 2005. I don't think there are any experts over Google algorithms, and I am not an expert on Google patents, but each patent solves a problem with it's own unique algorithm, and. I have been reading and writing about close to 5 of those a week for the past 16 years. I am not an expert. I just know a lot about most of Google's algorithms, and the assumptions behind them and what they might do to a website. My website has over 1,409 posts about over 1,400 search engine related patents, and the algorithms those are about. I love when someone claims to know Google's algorithm. The question is which one of the thousands of algorithms that have been assigned by the USPTO or WiPO, that they know about. ๐ค๐10 Ammon Johns ๐ ยป Slawski I hear ya there. People think that we look at the patents as if we believe that just because a patent exists it must be in use. That's far from the truth. But what patents do, and do brilliantly, is show HOW the search engineers approach certain problems. Because while a patent doesn't have to have been put into use, it still shows something that a lot of time and thought was invested into. Often the value isn't so much in the method they patented to solve a particular issue, but the insight into the methodology, the considerations of scale, and the details it gives us on what data sources they have, what other systems their proposed solution uses, etc. It also gives us a very valuable look at how search engineers use certain terminology that differs, often significantly, to the way SEO users use the same terms. Heck, there are a significant percentage of SEO users in the world who confuse 'Authority' with 'Authorship'. But if you had never read "Hubs and Authorities" you might miss some of the specifics of how the engines might use 'Authority'. Slawski ยป Ammon Johns I truly hate the opposite perspective. Just because there is a patent does not mean that it is just a work of fiction, like something written by Jorge Luis Borges or Jules Verne. Those have been filed to protect intellectual property, and it is sometimes a business decision as to whether they are implemented or not, but they truly could be. And when there are 20+ patents on phrase based Indexing, it is more like than not that they have implemented aspects of phrase based Indexing. And I truly love looking at the assumptions made in patents about search, searchers, and search engines. Sometimes they show you that the authors have never stepped outside of school or working for a search engine, and some people such as Alon Halevy at or Anna Lynn Patterson have built incredible things (such as the largest search engine of the 21st century.)
Ruลพiฤ "State University Professor K. Anders Ericsson, an internationally renowned psychologist who pioneered the concept that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert."
John May have been renowned and professional psychologist, but that's just a marketing cookie cutter way to sell his idea. IMO. Ruลพiฤ ยป John Well, he really did his research with real resultsโฆ. not in this field, but the research is legit. Others are just throwing numbers from nowhereโฆ from imagination John ยป Ruลพiฤ Yes, this was his speciality, I looked him up! I wouldn't argue with him ๐
