You can’t judge someone’s SEO ability from a document. You can judge the document. A proposal should say what will be done, who does it, what you receive, how anyone will know whether it worked, and what happens if it doesn’t. Google publishes a short list of claims that should end the conversation, and it’s worth knowing that list before your next meeting.
In plain English
Think about a builder’s quote.
You can’t assess a builder’s skill from a piece of paper. But you can read a quote and see whether it says which work is included, who does it, what it costs, when it happens, and what happens if something goes wrong.
And you can spot the quote that promises something no builder can promise. Nobody can guarantee that the council will approve your extension. A quote saying otherwise is either a misunderstanding of the process or an attempt to close you.
An SEO proposal is a quote. Read it the same way.
Why this matters for your site
The market has an information problem. Buyers usually can’t evaluate the work, which makes confident promises more persuasive than honest ones. That rewards the wrong providers.
There’s also a specific risk most businesses don’t realize they’re taking. Google states it plainly: you’re responsible for the actions of any company you hire. If a provider uses techniques that violate the spam policies, the consequence is a negative adjustment to your site’s presence in Google, or removal from the index altogether. It will be your site, not theirs, and cleaning it up will be your cost.
That single sentence is the strongest argument for reading the proposal carefully.
What has to be in it
Scope. What’s included and, just as important, what isn’t. Vague scope stays vague after signing, and every dispute later traces back here.
Deliverables. The literal things you receive. A report, a plan, implemented changes. “Ongoing optimization” isn’t a deliverable.
Who implements. Whether the provider makes changes to the site or hands recommendations to your developers. This is the most common misunderstanding in the industry and it’s one line to clarify.
Measurement. Which numbers will be used, and what the current values are. Without a baseline recorded before work starts, nobody can prove anything either way later.
Access. What they need and when. At the audit stage, Google recommends read access to Search Console only, not write access.
What happens if it doesn’t work. Not a refund clause necessarily, but a stated point at which the approach gets reviewed.
Change log. Google’s guidance is direct: if a provider has access to your server, they should be willing to explain every change they make. A proposal that promises a record of changes is telling you something about how they work.
What should stop you
These are Google’s own warnings, and every one of them is common enough that you’ll encounter several.
A guarantee of rankings. Google’s wording is that if they guarantee their changes will give you first place, find someone else. Nobody controls Google’s results.
A claimed special relationship with Google. There’s no such thing. Google also states that advertising with Google has no effect on organic presence and that it never accepts money to include or rank sites.
Priority submission to Google. Not a thing that exists.
Cold outreach. Google explicitly says to be wary of firms that email you out of the blue, and compares the appropriate level of skepticism to that for miracle diet products.
Secrecy about methods. If they won’t explain what they intend to do in terms you can follow, that’s the answer.
Being asked to link to them. Google states you should never have to link to an SEO.
Link schemes and mass submission. Anything about link popularity programs or submitting your site to thousands of search engines. Google calls these typically useless exercises, and some of them carry real risk.
Targets set on third-party scores. A proposal committing to a Domain Rating or Authority Score figure is committing to a number that Google doesn’t use, that no external tool derives from Google’s data, and that can be moved directly by buying links. Ask what the business outcome behind the number is.
Recommendations with no source. Google’s guidance suggests asking whether a provider cites official Google documentation to support their recommendations. It’s a fair question and the answer is informative.
Questions worth asking
Google publishes a list. These are the ones that reveal the most:
- Can you show examples of previous work?
- Do you follow the Google Search Essentials?
- What results do you expect, in what timeframe, and how will you measure them?
- What is your experience in my industry and my country?
- How will we communicate, and will you tell me about every change you make and why?
And one test that isn’t a question. Google’s guidance says to notice whether the provider is interested in your business at all. Someone who doesn’t ask what makes you different, who your competitors are, and how your customers currently find you isn’t preparing to do the work.
What this looks like in practice
Two proposals for the same business.
The first promises first-page rankings for twelve chosen terms within six months, includes a monthly deliverable of “SEO optimization and content”, and names Domain Rating 40 as a target.
The second says the first six weeks are diagnostic, states plainly that it doesn’t yet know what’s wrong, sets the review point at the end of the first quarter, names inquiries from search as the measure, and lists what the client’s own team will need to do.
The second is harder to say yes to. It’s also the only one making a commitment anybody can keep.
What people usually get wrong
“The cheaper one is the risk.” Sometimes. The expensive proposal promising guaranteed rankings is the larger risk, because you’re liable for what gets done in your name.
“They mentioned Google’s guidelines, so they’re legitimate.” Ask which part, and for what recommendation. Google suggests checking whether they cite the documentation rather than gesture at it.
“We’ll just try them for three months.” Three months is too short to judge anything except technical fixes, and long enough to do damage that takes longer to undo.
“We don’t need to understand it, that’s what we’re paying for.” You’re still accountable for what happens to your site.
What you can do about it
Read the scope twice and write down anything you’d have to guess at. Ask about each one.
Ask for the baseline in writing before work starts.
Ask who does the implementation, and get the answer in the document.
Check whether you’re being sold the right thing at all. An audit, an analysis and a strategy answer different questions, and a proposal for the wrong one will fail even if the provider is good.
Check any technical recommendation against Google’s documentation. It’s free and it takes ten minutes.
If a proposal contains any of the items in the stop list, ask about it directly. The response tells you more than the proposal did.
Google’s guidance on hiring an SEO is the source for most of the above and is short enough to read before a meeting. If you believe you were misled by a provider, Google points to the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, and to econsumer.gov for complaints against companies elsewhere.
Words you will hear
Scope creep. Work expanding beyond what was agreed, in either direction.
Guaranteed rankings. A promise nobody can keep, and Google’s stated reason to look elsewhere.
Priority submission. A service that doesn’t exist, offered as though it does.
Change log. A record of what was altered on your site and when, which you should be able to ask for.
For scope, deliverable and baseline, see Audit, analysis and strategy. For Domain Rating and Authority Score, see Domain Rating, Domain Authority and other third-party scores.
