The SEO issue opens up the question of whether being in the top actually produces the leads you want? You can brute force your way into results for those search terms by buying the clicks from ad words. When you do so, do they actually produce leads or are you just paying for casual searches? Perhaps different terms are needed rather than going the last mile on the ones you're using? Do the top holders seem to be targeting those terms and are they doing with their sites what you're trying to do?
The Everest fallacy needs to ask for more information. What did your grandmother do with that $80? Did she have great conversations all night long in a local cafe? Explore parts of the city ignored by tourists obsessed with the mountain? You must weigh those experiences against maybe a half hour packed in a helicopter that may not be the safest out there. It then follows when will your next $80 get spent? By lunch time? Tomorrow? Is that $80 less important because it isn't $80 next door to Everest on the last day of your vacation?
Your SEO advice echoes some other feedback I've gotten on the post. I'm 95% sure I'm going to turn off SEO in the next couple of days, and it's nice to have yet another person giving me the same advice.
I would've stayed at the concert, because I don't like leaving things in the middle. I'm a big FOMO person.
Regarding the SEO company, did they give you any kind of timetable on when you can expect results? Maybe they would give you one if you asked. Or have any of their reviews mentioned any time periods; "I saw my leads shoot up after two weeks!" If there's a commonality of success after such-and-such a time, and you've already passed it, that could be a clue it's not going to work for you.
On the Supreme Court trip, you said it was "apparent" once you got in line that you wouldn't get in. Did you surmise that from the size of the line, or did someone say, "Sorry, folks, we're full"? If it was the latter, and you stayed in line anyway, hoping for a miracle, then I'd say you were a victim of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. But if you took one look at the line and merely guessed, without anyone cofirming, that you wouldn't make it in before seats were full, then unless there was something else you'd been hoping to get to that day, you'd be victim of the Everest Fallacy by leaving.
Basically it seems that the better you can count the cost in any situation, the more likely you can avoid the extremes for either fallacy.
We're past when they said it should start working on the SEO, but only like 25% over, so within what might be called a normal distribution. On the Supreme Court trip it was pretty apparent from the size of the line and the lack of movement. But this does illustrate the issue. There is a lot of stuff to do in DC so standing in line for a 5% chance of getting in to something really memorable might have less expected value than going to some other attraction.
The SEO issue opens up the question of whether being in the top actually produces the leads you want? You can brute force your way into results for those search terms by buying the clicks from ad words. When you do so, do they actually produce leads or are you just paying for casual searches? Perhaps different terms are needed rather than going the last mile on the ones you're using? Do the top holders seem to be targeting those terms and are they doing with their sites what you're trying to do?
The Everest fallacy needs to ask for more information. What did your grandmother do with that $80? Did she have great conversations all night long in a local cafe? Explore parts of the city ignored by tourists obsessed with the mountain? You must weigh those experiences against maybe a half hour packed in a helicopter that may not be the safest out there. It then follows when will your next $80 get spent? By lunch time? Tomorrow? Is that $80 less important because it isn't $80 next door to Everest on the last day of your vacation?
Your SEO advice echoes some other feedback I've gotten on the post. I'm 95% sure I'm going to turn off SEO in the next couple of days, and it's nice to have yet another person giving me the same advice.
I would've stayed at the concert, because I don't like leaving things in the middle. I'm a big FOMO person.
Regarding the SEO company, did they give you any kind of timetable on when you can expect results? Maybe they would give you one if you asked. Or have any of their reviews mentioned any time periods; "I saw my leads shoot up after two weeks!" If there's a commonality of success after such-and-such a time, and you've already passed it, that could be a clue it's not going to work for you.
On the Supreme Court trip, you said it was "apparent" once you got in line that you wouldn't get in. Did you surmise that from the size of the line, or did someone say, "Sorry, folks, we're full"? If it was the latter, and you stayed in line anyway, hoping for a miracle, then I'd say you were a victim of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. But if you took one look at the line and merely guessed, without anyone cofirming, that you wouldn't make it in before seats were full, then unless there was something else you'd been hoping to get to that day, you'd be victim of the Everest Fallacy by leaving.
Basically it seems that the better you can count the cost in any situation, the more likely you can avoid the extremes for either fallacy.
We're past when they said it should start working on the SEO, but only like 25% over, so within what might be called a normal distribution. On the Supreme Court trip it was pretty apparent from the size of the line and the lack of movement. But this does illustrate the issue. There is a lot of stuff to do in DC so standing in line for a 5% chance of getting in to something really memorable might have less expected value than going to some other attraction.
Very nice!