Contact SEOS.co
Contact SEOS.co
Bring the question. Include the page. Keep the context clear. Contact SEOS.co about agency comparisons, the guide library, a factual correction or a site problem. Include the relevant URL and enough context to explain what you need. For agency consideration or inclusion information, use Agency Connect. The existing contact form below remains the route for site questions; do not send passwords, payment details or confidential customer information.
Write to SEOS.co
Include the relevant page URL and enough context to explain your question. Do not include passwords, payment details or confidential customer information.
Choose the route that matches your question
A useful message begins with the decision or problem you want to address. You might be trying to understand an agency comparison, locate a relevant guide, identify an incorrect statement or describe a page that is not working as expected. These are different requests. Naming the purpose makes it easier to understand what kind of information would help.
If your message concerns a particular page, include its full URL. A description such as the technical guide or the agency page may not identify the same resource for another reader. Quote the relevant statement or describe the part of the page involved. You do not need to paste an entire article when a short, precise reference explains the issue.
For a new agency consideration or inclusion request, Agency Connect provides the dedicated form. For a factual correction on an existing page, use this contact route and the corrections policy’s guidance. If both apply, distinguish them in your message. A request for consideration and a report that a public detail is wrong should not be treated as the same question.
Questions about comparing agencies
Explain your business, the market you serve and the kind of work you are evaluating. If you have a particular comparison in mind, include its URL and the question it raises. A useful inquiry identifies the decision you need to make rather than asking for an unspecified best agency. Fit depends on the work, the business context and your implementation resources.
Budget and timeline can help explain your circumstances when you know them. If you do not know them yet, say so rather than inventing a figure to complete the message. Describe who can approve content, make website changes and provide access to relevant reports. These constraints can affect what a proposed engagement needs to include.
Keep the question specific. You might want to understand a distinction between services, interpret a reported project or identify the criteria on a comparison page. The ranking methodology and review standards explain the editorial framework and evidence limits. Contacting the site does not itself establish a provider recommendation, a commercial introduction or a promise that a particular engagement is available.
For a hypothetical example, a useful question could identify a retailer preparing a platform migration and ask how to interpret a provider’s stated migration scope. The message could name the relevant comparison and the implementation responsibility that remains unclear. It should not include customer records or account credentials to establish that context. This example illustrates a well-framed inquiry, not a service offered or an actual request received.
Questions about the guide library
Include the guide URL and the point you want to understand. Explain the affected page or website context at a level that can be shared safely. If the question concerns implementation, state what you are trying to change and what you have observed. Keep the observation separate from your explanation of why it happened.
For example, a hypothetical reader may notice that a page is not appearing in the expected search context and want to understand a guide’s diagnostic step. A clear message identifies the step, the relevant public URL and what was observed. It does not assume that one platform event caused the issue solely because the dates are close.
If a guide uses terminology that is unclear, quote the term and explain the decision it prevents you from making. This is more informative than asking whether an entire topic works. A question about a technical requirement, a measurement interpretation and a business outcome may need different context, even when all three arise during the same project.
The learning library, how-to resources and measurement guides can provide useful starting points. They do not eliminate the need to evaluate your own implementation conditions. A message should not imply that a general explanation has already established the cause of a particular site’s problem or guaranteed what a proposed change will achieve.
Report a factual correction
Provide the affected URL, exact statement, proposed correction and a public source supporting it. Explain what changed and when, if you know. A precise report gives the concern an evidential path. The corrections policy explains this process and distinguishes factual issues from disagreement with an editorial recommendation or ranking position.
Match the source to the fact. An agency’s current official page can support its stated services or location information. Original research can clarify whether a study was quoted correctly. A different editorial list may show another perspective without establishing that a factual statement is wrong. Explain which part of the source supports the correction you propose.
If the issue is attribution, say who made the original claim and how the page describes it. Agency-reported results, client perspectives and independent measurements have different meanings. A useful correction may narrow the statement rather than replace it with another unsupported conclusion. Retain qualifications that materially affect what the reader can infer.
If you disagree with an interpretation, identify the evidence or criterion you believe should change it. A disagreement can be worth explaining without being a demonstrated factual error. Keep that distinction visible. A request for a different editorial position is not automatically established by the fact that a form was submitted or a preferred description was supplied.
Describe a site problem without exposing private information
For a display, navigation or form issue, include the URL and describe what you expected to happen and what actually happened. Mention the device or circumstances if known. A clear account of the sequence can help distinguish a page problem from an ambiguous description. Do not invent a cause merely because the page behaved unexpectedly.
If an action appears not to complete, avoid repeatedly submitting the same information to demonstrate the problem. State whether you saw a confirmation and whether you are unsure about the outcome. Missing confirmation and confirmed failure are different observations. A message can identify that uncertainty without assuming that no submission occurred.
Do not include passwords, payment details, private customer information or account access in a problem report. A public URL and a description of the affected interaction are usually a safer starting point. If an issue concerns sensitive material, explain its nature without reproducing the material in the contact message.
Keep any screenshot or quotation limited to what is necessary and appropriate to share. A screenshot can unintentionally expose names, email addresses or account data. The purpose is to explain the problem, not to provide an unrestricted view into a private system. Remove unrelated information before preparing the report.
Agency inclusion and profile information
Use Agency Connect to request ranking consideration or inclusion for a digital agency. The current route asks for relevant pages, locations and agency context, and it allows sponsorship interest to be described. State the request clearly and provide public information that supports the services or experience you want considered.
If an agency already appears and a factual detail is incorrect, identify the existing page through the correction route. A profile correction differs from a request for a preferred position or expanded coverage. You can supply both kinds of context, but separating them helps avoid implying that a factual repair establishes an editorial outcome.
Agency information should remain attributed and current. Serving a market is not necessarily the same as maintaining an office there. A selected case study is not a promise of a result for another business. Review the methodology and review standards when preparing evidence so that the material explains its scope rather than relying on broad promotional language.
A worked example: asking about an agency comparison
Consider a hypothetical retailer comparing providers before a platform migration. A useful opening is: I am comparing migration support for our store and want to understand the implementation responsibility described on this comparison page. The message then gives the comparison URL and identifies the sentence that prompted the question. This locates the uncertainty without asking for an unspecified best provider.
The retailer could explain that its development team will build the new store, while the proposed agency would advise on redirects and search requirements. It could ask whether the published description establishes hands-on implementation or advisory experience. These are different delivery models. Naming the distinction helps frame a question the public comparison may answer, while contract responsibilities still need direct confirmation from the provider.
This is an illustrative message, not a description of an enquiry received or a service commitment. Its useful parts are the relevant page, the project context and one unresolved question. A request for an introduction or a guarantee would be a different request and should not be inferred from an explanation of how to read a comparison.
A worked example: clarifying a guide step
Imagine a reader following a guide about a page that is missing from search. The reader can identify the guide URL, quote the diagnostic step and explain which observation is unclear. For example: The guide asks me to compare the canonical page with the indexed URL. I understand which page I intended to publish, but I am unsure which observation this step is asking me to record. This is a hypothetical question about an instruction, not an established diagnosis.
Add a relevant public URL when it can be shared appropriately. Explain what you have already observed and which part of the guide you need to understand before continuing. There is no need to attach an entire private analytics report to clarify a term. Keep account credentials and customer information out of the message; the question should remain understandable from the limited context you provide.
A clear distinction between explanation and implementation also helps. Asking what a guide means is different from asking someone to make a change to your website. State which decision you are trying to make and what is preventing it. That keeps an educational question focused without implying a support contract, access arrangement or promised technical outcome.
Keep follow-up context connected
When adding evidence to an earlier message, repeat the original page URL and identify the same statement or question. Then explain exactly what the new material contributes. For example, a current official service page may resolve a question about the provider’s stated offer while leaving the date of the change unknown. Keeping those points separate preserves continuity and makes the additional source useful.
Keep a record of the public URLs and question you sent. A contact message is not confirmation that a change was made or a request accepted, and this page does not promise a response deadline or completion timetable. If you inspect a correction later, check the particular statement rather than treating a changed date as proof that every source was rechecked.
Send your message
Use the contact form for the site questions and corrections described here. Email and message are required; first name, last name and subject are optional. A descriptive subject can identify the route, such as a comparison question, guide clarification, factual correction or display problem. Agency Connect is the dedicated form for agency consideration information.
Before sending, check that the message contains the affected URL and a specific question or proposed correction. For a correction, identify which source supports which statement. For a display problem, describe what you expected and what happened. Remove unrelated private information, then submit only the actual enquiry you intend to send. The existing form is available near the top of this page.
Questions before contacting SEOS.co
Which page should I use for agency consideration?
Use Agency Connect for ranking consideration or inclusion information, relevant pages and locations, and sponsorship interest. Use the contact form for a factual correction on an existing page, with the exact statement and supporting source. A request does not guarantee a position or an acceptance outcome.
Do I need to know the cause of a site problem?
No. Describe what you observed, the URL and the circumstances you know. An accurate account of uncertainty is more useful than an unsupported diagnosis. Avoid repeated submissions when the result of an earlier action is unclear.
Can I send confidential project material?
Do not include passwords, payment information, private customer records or confidential contracts. Explain the concern using public material where possible and identify any evidence limitation. The message should provide context without exposing information that does not belong in a public contact route.