In content links and methods question

**Chalkie** · 10 July 2009, 8:10 am

Google as we know do not like hidden links and confirm this here:

http://www.google.com/support/webmas...n&answer=66353

This in mind how should one use in content links

Is placing an incontent link without highlighting it seen as bad by google? Do they class this as a hidden link?

Would highlighting it be worse?

It would certainly make a page with umpteen links look messy.

Placing links in content for swop and sales reasons would not be so popular for me if i had to highlight them.

When i exchange a link i would prefer it unhighlighted in content than in a links menu as i feel it carries more weight incontent with the correct anchor of course. I suppose i would prefer it incontent highlighted, however, the weight of the incontent with correct anchor is in my mind a great link to have anyway.

What can people advise with weighted reasons? What evidence is there to prove or disprove any of the methods involved.

**pompeyrayuk** · 10 July 2009, 9:26 am

If the links are not highlighted then where is the appeal for someone to buy them as the chances of them getting hit are slim are they not. They can be highlighted in a subtle tone of the text colour can they not?

**Chips** · 10 July 2009, 9:39 am

Links should look like links. Contextual links should stand out form generic text. We are in the biz of sales, so, be a salesperson. Text links sell far better than a banner ad, we all know visitors don't bang banners like they used to. I get tons more hits off of text links then any images.

You can still be subtle with the text links, "visit the promotions page for more info" <--- with aff tag inserted works well for me. Deep linking to a specific page on a site is meat and potatoes. They may want more info but not ready to commit, this gives the visitor the info, along with your aff tag cookied so they will be under you when they sign up, even if not at that second.

Hidden links are those that are white on white or hidden behind images.

**slotplayer** · 10 July 2009, 11:33 am

I would say no.

before css, link attributes (colors) were set in the body tag
link, active (alink) visited(vlink)

such as
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" ALINK="#0001FF" VLINK="#800080">

I assume the whole purpose of having those attributes was to distinguish them from regular body text.

Those have been deprecated in html 4.01 and now we use css.

**lots0** · 10 July 2009, 3:03 pm

When google talks about "hidden" links they are talking about links placed just for SEO and that are not visible (at all) to the user.

Examples of hidden links are, using same color link text on the same color background or making the link so small no one can see it or moving it off the viewable area of the page with CSS.

These type of hidden links are what google is going to penalize you for.

Even if you don't highlight or underline a normal html link in the text, the cursor will still show it as a link when you mouseover it, so even though it is not highlighted the user can still tell it is a link.

After having said all that... Chips is right... a link should look like a link.

**vmlinuz** · 10 July 2009, 3:23 pm

Lots0 is right, until you don't hide the links with some method, Google won't have a problem with it. Same goes for hidden text.
I don't think they check this automatically.

**penny-slot-machines** · 10 July 2009, 6:10 pm

According to that google article, this type of link isn't quite the same as the examples they give to define 'hidden', but it does fit with their evaluation criteria quoted below:

"When evaluating your site to see if it includes hidden text or links, look for anything that's not easily viewable by visitors of your site. Are any text or links there solely for search engines rather than visitors?"

For sure, these links are "not easily viewable to the visitor". The text is easily viewable, but not the link

Obviously, google can easily detect when a link is the same style and formatting as the text that surrounds it, irrespective of whether basic html or css style-sheets are being used.

But, the big question is,

How do google judge these links? There are three possibilities in my eyes:

i) - USEFUL - Google gives them the same credibility as any other link on the page and pass on the full link-juice

ii) - OF LIMITED USE or USELESS - Google detects that the link is not easily viewable by visitors and and so attaches little or no weight to it, almost as if it were a nofollow link

iii) - DANGEROUS - Google sees it as an active way of disguising links from the visitor and decides it may be a purchased link. They then penalises sites that over-use this tactic

As ever, it's worth considering what google will do in the future, rather than just look at what they have done in the past

How would you judge these links, if you were google?

**penny-slot-machines** · 10 July 2009, 6:14 pm

It would be good to get Gary's perspective on this question

Gary, did you ever test the value of an intext link that looks identical to the surrounding text it is embedded within?

**baggsy** · 15 July 2009, 4:18 am

Originally Posted by penny-slot-machines

But, the big question is,

How do google judge these links? There are three possibilities in my eyes:

i) - USEFUL - Google gives them the same credibility as any other link on the page and pass on the full link-juice

ii) - OF LIMITED USE or USELESS - Google detects that the link is not easily viewable by visitors and and so attaches little or no weight to it, almost as if it were a nofollow link

iii) - DANGEROUS - Google sees it as an active way of disguising links from the visitor and decides it may be a purchased link. They then penalises sites that over-use this tactic

My money is on ii). They are clever enough to work out that it's not as equally useful for a user as a normal link...

Thread: In content links and methods question

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

In content links and methods question

Posting Permissions