This time we’re really starting
Thursday, January 29th, 2009Friends, our apologies.
In mid-December, we somewhat hurriedly and overconfidently announced regular blog postings that would start pretty much right away. No such luck. We won’t bore you with reasons but if vacations, followed by continued diligent work on the www.seotrump.com website are any excuse, we might be forgiven. Thanks.
Well, at least the work is paying off. Our SERPs have increased further for several important, and we dare say, highly competitive search terms. No reason to get haughty, though. SERPs (just like life) can be a yo-yo, and can fall faster than rise. Just ask the stock market.
However we keep smiling: if we can do well in the “lions’ den”, i.e. in the highly knowledgeable area of SEO, “against” our esteemed colleagues many of whom are true experts and pros, we feel we’ll continue to do well for our clients, too.
So, ye olde clients and ye new ones, you are invited to step forward and discuss with us your new or ongoing web and SEO needs. Simply click our contact page www.seotrump.com/seo_contact.php. If you want, you can then book a free, no obligation, no pressure 30 minute web and SEO session with one of our SEO consultants.
Before I blog off, just a quick SEO thought. (Please agree or disagree, as long as everyone replies and posts on this blog big time).
Are irrelevant inlinks (”backlinks”) detrimental for the receiving website?
On the one hand the site is feeding off irrelevant links, which are almost considered junk in relationship to the site’s actual needs. So this could be deemed detrimental.
On the other hand, where do we draw the line? Anyone could do damage to an innocent competitor’s or adversary’s site by pointing irrelevant links to it. Such links, then, should not be deemed detrimental.
Google, or rather, Google’s spam guru Matt Cutts said in an interview that the latter was the case. No site can be made to suffer for unwanted outside actions. Therefore, as a protective measure irrelevant links are generally not deemed detrimental by the search engines. They are not necessarily beneficial, either, of course, just useless.
Matt’s reasoning sounds plausible. But does Google really follow this logic? We hope they do.
See you next time, sooner and more regularly. Meanwhile, reply to your heart’s delight.