Thread by @darth_na

@Kevin_Indig Personally - I find there are (should be!) more overlaps than stand-outs.

Things like UX are typically large-scope/site wide,
and should be done (to a degree) for any sized site,
as one small change has impact across the board.

The big differences tend to be...

>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>

Tech debt
Frankensites
Politics/Personalities
Remits/lanes
Permission chains
Paperwork/Justification
Communication
Prioritisation
Volume/Quantity of edits
Real data analysis over simple charts

But ... usually - there are departments and teams.
Not 1 SEO doing it all

>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>

And, in almost all cases, the SEOs don't generally get to touch code (foundational SEO/UX/CR),
that's passed on to web/dev.

In some cases, the SEOs don't touch the content either,
that's passed on to editors/authors.

The SEO is generally left in a "higher" position

>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>

Where as smaller outfits the SEO tends to get their hands dirty, and have to cope with making changes (content, getting plugins),
in larger/huge outfits - they primarily assess, analyse, recommend ... then spend hours pushing tickets, filing requests, pointing to references

@Kevin_Indig >>>

The other big difference is ... what tends to be prioritised, and when/what order.

Though "Optimisation" is the same
(G don't treat Titles on a small site different to those on a Mega etc.),
the scope, cost etc. change ...

>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>

- so the prioritisation changes with it, with input from other departments (who may have more "sway", as they may have "harder" figures than the SEO dept.).

I think the main reason there is often a perceived bigger difference,
is because many SEOs at the smaller end...

>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>

... have no real clue about business, inter-department communications, providing input to the C-Suite etc.,
and tend to work through inefficient checklists,
rather than prioritising properly by goal, resource cost etc.

If you have that knowledge - not such a change.