[email protected] +44 20 7193 0206
Business Showcase

WordPress, a nightmare for SEO or Saviour

27th February, 2018
0

Googles number one recommendation for SEO is content, content, content. Why then is it such a trial to get WordPress to rank on Google?

Roughly half our SEO clients use WordPress, we used to recommend WordPress all the time and we’ve made good advances in speeding up WordPress and getting it to perform relatively decently. But still, we do not see the dramatic boosts in SEO growth that other clients achieve.

We know we can get websites to perform beautifully for e-commerce, or on platforms like Fyneworks, or Magento or even plain old HTML. We also know that we can tick all the relevant boxes like 301 redirects, keywords, Facebook add-ons, and so on, sitemaps, the content structure much much more.

Clients are also able to add content, blog, news, articles, resources, they go it all and our most prolific writers are definitely WordPress users.  Yet 20% increases year on year in traffic is still very hard to come by.

And that is the bottom line, we want, we expect clients that take advantage of our SEO services to see annual growth, year after year. This comes from our three golden targets, great content, well-liked or shared, and built on a quality, reliable systems.

Our biggest guess is that Goole still treats WordPress websites a bit like hobbyist or part-time web enthusiasts, always welcome but never profitable.

That all said and done, we do have successes and plenty of them, when a client asked me to justify my bills for SEO the other day, I was able to fire back, if it weren’t for us, what marketing would he be doing.  Sadly, not enough.

Marketing takes discipline, on the good days you don’t bother life is too busy, on the bad days, it’s too late and it’s a frantic rush with little reward.

All in all, WordPress is a nightmare when it comes to SEO, but it has one saving grace above all others, it is easy to add to content to, and if content is truly king then WordPress does at least allow for that.

Comments

comments