Interview scorecard template

Senior SEO Manager interview scorecard

Evaluate Senior SEO Manager candidates across 4 weighted areas: campaigns that performed, measurement and testing, audience and segmentation, and working with the business. Campaigns that performed leads at 30%, so ask for specific sites they grew: organic sessions before and after, revenue or lead impact, timeframe, and whether gains survived a core. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
marketing growthcontent strategykeyword researchserp analyticstechnical seo
TL;DR
For campaigns that performed, look for evidence the candidate names properties, cites organic traffic and revenue deltas with dates, and explains which levers (technical fixes, content, links) drove them. For measurement and testing, look for evidence the candidate uses annotated dashboards, controlled rollouts or holdout pages, and distinguishes algorithm volatility from genuine performance change. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Campaigns that performed

30% weight

Ask for specific sites they grew: organic sessions before and after, revenue or lead impact, timeframe, and whether gains survived a core algorithm update.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names campaigns or programmes they ran, with the metric they moved and the baseline it moved from
  • Distinguishes their own work from the team's or the agency's
  • Knows the audience and the offer, not just the channel
  • Can describe a campaign that failed and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No numbers; describes activity rather than results.

2
Needs Improvement

Vanity metrics only; attribution to their own work is unclear.

3
Satisfactory

Real campaigns with some numbers; baselines often missing.

4
Very Good

Named campaigns with metric, baseline, and clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Names properties, cites organic traffic and revenue deltas with dates, and explains which levers (technical fixes, content, links) drove them.

02
Evaluation factor

Audience and segmentation

25% weight

Probe how they build keyword and intent maps: tools like Ahrefs, Semrush or Search Console, cannibalisation checks, and clustering by funnel stage.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes real customer segments and what differs between them, not demographic guesses
  • Has built lifecycle stages, journeys, or nurture logic that reflect actual behaviour
  • Knows where the audience data comes from and its limits
  • Writes for the segment rather than for everyone

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

One message for everyone; no segmentation thinking.

2
Needs Improvement

Segments by demographics only; no behavioural insight.

3
Satisfactory

Workable segmentation; lifecycle logic is basic.

4
Very Good

Behaviour-driven segmentation and lifecycle design with evidence behind it.

5
Excellent

Describes intent-based clusters and topical hubs tied to buyer stage, plus how they retired or merged competing URLs.

03
Evaluation factor

Measurement and testing

30% weight

Test measurement rigour: GA4 and Looker Studio reporting, log file analysis, Core Web Vitals, crawl budget diagnostics, and how they isolate SEO from other channels.

Evidence to listen for

  • Tests deliberately rather than changing everything at once
  • Understands attribution limits and does not overclaim
  • Knows what sample size and duration a test needed
  • Can name a test whose result contradicted what they expected

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No testing; claims credit for correlation.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tests but reads them badly; overclaims attribution.

3
Satisfactory

Tests sensibly; rigour drops under deadline pressure.

4
Very Good

Disciplined testing with honest attribution and a result that surprised them.

5
Excellent

Uses annotated dashboards, controlled rollouts or holdout pages, and distinguishes algorithm volatility from genuine performance change.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the business

15% weight

Check how they move work through others while remote: briefing writers, getting engineering tickets prioritised, and defending SEO requirements during site migrations or replatforms.

Evidence to listen for

  • Works with sales, product, or operations rather than throwing campaigns over a wall
  • Briefs designers and writers well enough to get usable work
  • Manages agencies or freelancers to a standard
  • Reports results to leadership without spin

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Works in isolation; reports only flattering numbers.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited coordination; briefs are thin.

3
Satisfactory

Coordinates adequately; reporting is honest if basic.

4
Very Good

Strong partner to sales and product; briefs and reports clearly.

5
Excellent

Cites a migration or redesign where they secured dev resource, ran redirect mapping, and prevented traffic loss with documented sign-off.

Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards