How to evaluate an agency for SEO and development work

Give both candidates the same unresolved problem

In this fictional brief, a company plans to replace /services/warehouse-integration with /services/software. The existing page describes connecting warehouse systems to an order application. The proposed page is a broad list of software services. The buyer wants to avoid losing useful content during the redesign, but has not supplied verified search data or evidence that the new page answers the old page’s questions.

For a fair comparison, ask each candidate to explain whether the pages serve an equivalent need, identify the evidence still missing, and propose an implementation boundary. The same brief should state what is outside the assessment: no publishing, production configuration changes or migration approval. Give both candidates the same sanitized material and explain any access limitations.

Google’s hiring guidance recommends examining an SEO’s reasoning, expected results and references. It says an initial Search Console audit should receive read access rather than write access, and warns against first-place ranking guarantees. Those are source-backed hiring checks. My preference for a paid, time-bounded assessment is a procurement proposal, not a Google requirement or an established Ulties commercial policy.

Read the responses for evidence and gaps

Fictional submission A promises that a permanent redirect will preserve all search traffic. It proposes sending every retired service URL to the homepage so visitors will never see a missing page. It requests production administrator access before explaining the mapping, and treats an attractive mockup as approval to proceed. It supplies no comparison of the old warehouse content with the broader software page.

Fictional submission B says the destination’s suitability is unproven. It proposes comparing both pages’ content with the buyer questions they answer, then examining relevant Search Console pages and queries using approved read-only access. It records missing data as an unknown. It recommends retaining the existing URL while the assessment decides whether equivalent content will remain there or move to a relevant replacement.

B also separates the assessment from delivery. Its proposed handover is a mapping decision with reasons, the affected internal links and canonical references, and a validation plan an implementing developer can challenge. B does not claim to have run that plan. Its submission names the proposed delivery role but has not established which person will do the work, their availability, price or relevant references.

For this brief, I would reject A’s proposal as written. The traffic guarantee is unsupported, and a blanket homepage redirect ignores whether the destination meets the visitor’s need. Google’s move guidance warns against irrelevant redirects and explains that removed content may need a 404 or 410. Requiring administrator access for this assessment also exceeds the agreed read-only boundary; it is not evidence that the supplier has diagnosed the problem.

Choose a bounded next step, with conditions

I recommend discussing a bounded assessment with B, because its next step addresses the unresolved content equivalence and exposes missing evidence before changing the site. This is not approval for the redesign or proof that B can deliver it. A cautious response can still be written by a team without implementation experience.

Before commissioning even that assessment, verify relevant references and agree the specific material to inspect, the deliverable and the fee. Confirm who will perform it and how sensitive information will be handled. If the candidate will not explain those boundaries, the fictional preference for B does not justify proceeding. Price comparisons remain open because this scenario supplies no comparable quotes.

The assessment is accepted when the decision is reviewable: it identifies what was inspected, distinguishes observations from assumptions, and gives reasons for preserving, replacing or removing the old page. A second developer should be able to identify the affected paths and challenge the proposed destination. Producing a polished document or filling every rubric field does not establish that its conclusions are correct.

For an eventual relevant replacement, the proposed release checks should inspect the old path’s redirect and then the destination’s successful response and content. They should also inspect updated internal links and canonical references. A retained page needs a different outcome from removed content with no relevant replacement. These are acceptance requirements to agree and execute later, not passed tests in this example.

Keep technical acceptance separate from a business result

Google’s move guidance covers mapping URLs, implementing permanent redirects and monitoring the move. It also describes possible search fluctuations during processing. A successful HTTP response or updated sitemap does not demonstrate that Google has indexed the destination, preserved a particular ranking or generated a qualified enquiry. The proposed assessment cannot promise those outcomes.

When evaluating a case study, ask what the metric actually counts and which period is being compared. Search clicks are not qualified enquiries. Changes to tracking or other work during the period may complicate attribution; ask the supplier to disclose them rather than inferring that a redesign caused every change. This article provides no real baseline, attribution analysis or measured agency result.

If the project includes an enquiry form, specify application acceptance and receipt by the receiving system separately from a browser confirmation. That requirement needs its own authorized tests and failure handling. Neither a redirect check nor the fictional agency submission demonstrates delivery.

I recommend agreeing who reviews the change, who can release it and who investigates a failed launch before approving implementation. Put repository access, ongoing costs and ownership arrangements into the project agreement rather than assuming them from a pitch. In this example, the defensible selection is a limited investigation with unresolved commercial and delivery questions, not an unconditional agency endorsement.