41 replies to this topic

[Marchy]

I was wondering if you use the the words "addicted to drugs " in a text link. Would it pass some "juice" for each word or just for the sentence? Meaning would it help for "addicted" or "drugs individually or just "addicted to drugs"?

[Scottie]

It all counts, both as words and as a phrase.

[Marchy]

It should be the same with words in plural right? Let's say "words" will also benefit "word".

[Randy]

No, if you're asking what I think you're asking. Or at least it's not a direct benefit for most plurals.

But let me first make sure I understand what you're asking. Let's say someone links to your page with the anchor text of Click Here. The link would pass value for the word "click" and the word "here" and the phrase "click here". Not so much though for the word "clicks" the non-word "heres" or the phrases "clicks here" "click heres" or "clicks heres". As it should be since the plural version does not appear in the anchor text.

[Marchy]

No, if you're asking what I think you're asking. Or at least it's not a direct benefit for most plurals.

But let me first make sure I understand what you're asking. Let's say someone links to your page with the anchor text of Click Here. The link would pass value for the word "click" and the word "here" and the phrase "click here". Not so much though for the word "clicks" the non-word "heres" or the phrases "clicks here" "click heres" or "clicks heres". As it should be since the plural version does not appear in the anchor text.

I was more wondering the opposite. Is "clicks heres" would pass for "click" "here" and "clcik here". More is the plural would pass all singular words and phrases.

[Michael Martinez]

I was more wondering the opposite. Is "clicks heres" would pass for "click" "here" and "clcik here". More is the plural would pass all singular words and phrases.

On a very powerful, well-trusted site you would most likely get that kind of value to pass.

It rarely happens on most sites. [NOTE: I base that on the careful examination of links on several hundred Websites over the past few years. Most of the links did not pass partial value.]

[Marchy]

In a certain way, it would make sense because everyone would just write in plural which would not make sense!

[Catz]

You are wondering whether using the s at the end will give benefit in the singular case of terms as well.

Like whether "plays with toys" would give the same benefit as "play with toy".

Looking to get benefit from play, plays, toy and toys, as well as play with toy and plays with toys.

You do see a few results without the s at the end if you do a search with it, but maybe that is the choice few Michael mentioned. You can test it and see what happens with your site.

Hard to believe people still use click here in their pages but you see it every day. Just like more info or view all...what a waste of link text, and you're not helping the visitor with that either. Maybe it has become more popular again with more people using CMS and many more inexperienced developers out there building websites. What a great way to hide your content without even knowing it.

Click here to see what, more info about what, view all of what?

Good example but not something I would expect Randy does too often in personal websites.

[Scottie]

Well, just to be contrary, there are plenty of usability reasons to use "click here" but absolutely no SEO benefits. You have to balance what makes sense for your visitors with helping the site to rank well.

I know I recently worked on a site aimed at seniors and we used "click here" quite liberally because that's what they needed to do. We were more interested in actually getting them to use the site to place orders than thinking every single element of the site was required to help boost rankings.

The very young, the older and the Internet-awkward need clear calls to action, not your marketing phrases hiding the intent of the link. It very much depends on who is using your site and how they use it as to how you place your marketing links vs your call to action links.

There are plenty of ways to optimize a site for people and search engines without forcing a keyword phrase into every link. It really does a disservice to many sites who get their rankings then lose their customers.

[Catz]

I'm with you, there are usability reasons for Click Here, especially with sites for the elderly and those new to the web. I don't believe in forcing keyword phrases anywhere, just natural descriptions of what will be found on the other end of a link.

Those click here's along with a larger than normal font size and obvious links so they are clear are all a good idea in a situation like that, along with simple to follow navigation clearly marked on every page.

I recently created a website for a surgeon who has mostly senior patients and did the same thing. It has to be easy to use for the least experienced visitor, yet still keep the attention of more experienced patients as well. Of course, for that type site there was no need for Click Here links, being more informational than sales oriented. It was selling the surgeons services, but not a product to be purchased on the website.

I was actually thinking of usability in preferring a little more specific link text to click here in most cases, rather than boosting rankings, that's just a side benefit.

Of course there are appropriate times to use terms like Click Here as a call to action, just as you use a Submit button for a form, but it is certainly overused in many cases. I know I sometimes want more information rather than to follow a link to something I am not searching for.

Marketing phrases hiding the intent of the link is never good and forcing keyword phrases is not either. Didn't even consider someone might get that from my original statement, but you are right to point that out. Don't want to confuse anyone.

[Scottie]

Not picking on you Catz, I'm just really really sick of people freaking out when we put in a non-keyword but simple call-to-action because they "read somewhere" that you should "never use click here."

The problem is (as always) people want a magic formula to follow to make everything perfect and they prefer not to have to think about what makes sense for the visitor! :frustrated:

While it's often true that "click here" is used by lazy programmers and could be more helpfully worded for both visitor and marketing, people think it's absolute gospel and now heresy to actually use "click here."

And there's nothing I love more than arguing with a client who's read a few helpful SEO articles...

[Jill]

Sometimes I use both a call to action link and a keyword rich one.

In those cases I have used the nofollow attribute on the call to action link just in case those who say that only one link on a page counts towards your anchor text. I figure I'd rather get the keywords then the click here to count if it is in fact true.

[Catz]

The problem is (as always) people want a magic formula to follow to make everything perfect and they prefer not to have to think about what makes sense for the visitor!

And that magic formula simply does not exist!

No problem Scottie, you are so used to dealing with that on a daily basis, it has to get frustrating. I've been at this a long, long time and usability is my main focus in the web design aspect. Don't go for the latest fad and certainly know better than to trust an article for SEO advice.

Could be personal preference too, it just bugs me to see a page loaded with Click Here's and nothing else in the link text. Should have said it's hard to believe people create entire websites exclusively with those type links rather than simply pages with those type links.

They have their place but as a visitor, a little variety is nice sometimes too. As a visitor to websites, I personally prefer links to give a little more information, but you are right, I am not the newbie surfer. In usability, we create a site that is simple enough for the inexperienced user (KISS), yet interesting enough to keep the attention of the experienced user as well (depending on the audience of course).

It's a balance between the two that would be ideal, at least to me.

Since the original question was specifically about SEO and getting that type value from the specific words used in link text, that was more my focus in my previous response. I see how it could have been misunderstood if viewed in another context.

I don't look at every little keyword in a page or place them artificially into content just to have keywords in a page, like so many people you deal with in the forums who have not yet learned better sometimes do.

Those "helpful" SEO articles are the worst! With so many blogs out there now, article submission services and people who don't have a clue putting out articles as if they had the knowledge and experience you and Jill (and many others here) do, people who don't know who to trust can believe some crazy stuff!

You brought up a very valid point. I enjoy a good debate, thanks for speaking up!

[SERPico]

Sometimes I use both a call to action link and a keyword rich one.

In those cases I have used the nofollow attribute on the call to action link just in case those who say that only one link on a page counts towards your anchor text. I figure I'd rather get the keywords then the click here to count if it is in fact true.

If you nofollow the first link and have another link to the same page that isn't nofollow, the second link won't pass anchor text because only the first links counts, regardless if it is nofollow.

That's how I understand it though reading some of the debunking/rebunking/ on the first link priority subject.


Since it's about call to action elements it's also a possibility to use CSS to have your Call to action element appear under your anchor text optimized link in the source code of your page.

Because that's not always practical you can create a redirect for the call to action link and a direct link for the anchor text optimized link.

So if your target page is: /white-handbag.html

And you want this page to rank for white handbag then you could link to this page with a call to action link that links like this:

CODE

<a href="http://www.example.com/discount/wh.html">Click Here To Get 50% Discount With Coupon Code: 0510GR</a>

Then you link to your product page with your optimized anchor text:

CODE

<a href="http://www.example.com/white-handbag.html">white handbag</a>

Using robots.txt you disallow the folder /discount and use noindex/nofollow on the redirect page wh.html


Now you have two links to the same page for the user taking full advantage of anchor text without losing the value of the anchor text regardless if the whole first link priority theory is valid, with or without nofollow placed on any first link in the source code.

[Jill]

Now you have two links to the same page for the user taking full advantage of anchor text without losing the value of the anchor text regardless if the whole first link priority theory is valid, with or without nofollow placed on any first link in the source code.

Oh my.

That's a lot of crazy work for a theory that is likely not even true. From what I see, that first link thing doesn't hold water.