Is this considered an Invisible link?

Line appears under text only if you mouse over it.

[br33526]

If a link doesn't have a line under it, and the line only appears if you mouse over it, is that considered an invisible link?

ie. buy.com site map at the bottom of their home page

I don't think those should be considered invisible links. what do you think?

[netguy]

I would agree that it should not be considered an invisible link. I have several news sites (PR5s and PR6s) that are linked with non-lined summary text, with more... at the end of each, and Google doesn't seem to have any problems with them at all.

[Dolemite]

No.

An invisible link is hidden or camoflaged from the user in some way. I.E. text on a background of the same color.

If the text of the link is visible, its not a hidden link.

[jomaxx]

Making links out of black, unlined text is VERY bad usability. Why force users to solve riddles in order to navigate your site? Why not just make it easy?

As for Google, I really think it could come down to a manual check and a possible decision about whether the disguised links were a site design issue or an attempt to manipulate rankings. If you make disguised links out of a bunch of keywords in an area of the page that a user normally would not think to mouseover, that could IMO trigger a penalty.

[edited by: jomaxx at 7:58 pm (utc) on Mar. 21, 2003]

[skipfactor]

just a CSS hover, nice way to hover without javascript. FoxNEWS has them all over their site. I think it's great for site like this, keeps the page from looking like a page full of links.

[jomaxx]

But... but... but it IS a page full of links.

Anyway, as pet peeves go, this is very low on my list.

[TheDave]

I think aside from anything, for usability leave the links underlined. I just visited that foxnews and I see what you mean. The titles are semi-obvious that they may be links, just because they're a title, but what I found quite annoying was things I didnt expect to be linked were, which meant I only had to go further in my mouseoverings looking for links..

[skipfactor]

"The titles are semi-obvious that they may be links..."

Good point. That's the absolute honest threshold IMO. I use them to spice up toolbar text links or as a link to a detail page w/ something like "more...".

Stuffing one into a long paragraph is misleading to say the least.

[Powdork]

I think when you really cross the line is to use css to remove (not add) the underline when you hover.

[vitaplease]

This recent posting of Msgraph might be of interest:

A Study On Link Display And Their Effects On Reading [webmasterworld.com]

[Brett_Tabke]

The problem is best solved by voting with your back button. I won't stay on a site that doesn't have underlined links - it's not worth the hassle.

[Powdork]

Does that always apply? What about the case of an obvious navigation bar (not buttons). The type where it is a different style text (class="links") that changes color when you hover?

[austtr]

If the link words are part of the page text intended for reading, then I want them to be instantly recognisable.. being underlined or not is of no great relevance. Just showing up in the default bright blue is fine or some other contrasting colour.

But if the links are part of the menus that provide site navigation, then I will often remove the underlining purely for presentation purposes.