Anchor text is?

almost afraid to ask.

[Perplexed]

I read in so many posts that you must get the anchor text right. I assume anchor text is the bit between <ahref=> and the </a> tag.... right? but what is a "right" way to do it,? do you just mean that this text should be loaded with your key words?

[keyplyr]

Yes, keywords is what you've probably read, but 'loaded' might be stretching it.

When possible, I duplicate what will be found in the <H> tags on the resulting page. This combination seems to give a lot of weight.

[Perplexed]

Just as I thought :) But then that would e something you do not always have control over. I guess some webmasters will put whatever you suggest when you request a link but not all would.

[keyplyr]

some webmasters will put whatever you suggest when you request a link but not all would.

True - Helps to have a 'link info' type page where you post your link-back graphics and cut'n paste code.

[Perplexed]

So just how much do you put between the <a href=> </a> tags?

Normally all you would see here is the site name and any description would come after the </a> tag. ( which I guess is what they call surrounding text ) Would you suggest that the whole description becomes the link text and ends up underlined?

[Freshman]

Perplexed, I wouldn't recommend putting too much between <a href="...">and </a>.

I noticed a very strange thing which doesn't comply with anything said here before (in regards to anchor text).

For 2 months I've been doing anchor text for links to my website pretty much in "a literate way" just as recommended at Webmasterworld.com. It was something like:
<a href="www.XYZ.com" name="blue widgets" onmouseover="window.status='Blue widgets and red widgets repair'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='Red widgets and blue widget repair'; return true;"> Blue Widgets and Red Widget Repair - XYZ, Inc </a>.
It was not always with onmouseover window.status, some wording varied - so I did a lot of experimenting.
BUT: none of those bloody "literate" links got actually indexed by Google! (that's over 2 months' time!)
All my competitors increased their link popularity (accordingly PR, serps positions) thru some "stupid" links like <a href="ZYX.com">ZYX.com</a>
or <a href="ZYX.com">ZYX Inc</a>.
That seriusly busted me up.
Perhaps, the reason was keyword stuffing suspicion?
Could this have been construed spam and therefore penalized? Dunno what to think.
Some advice from big hairy webmasters would be most welcome

[edited by: heini at 10:44 am (utc) on Sep. 27, 2003]
[edit reason] no tools, please, thanks. [/edit]

[Freshman]

Please is there anybody to shed light here?

[Yidaki]

The mouseover is one possible thing i can imagine which *could* cause the link to be ignored by gbot. Also the name attribute normally is used to specifiy a onsite (relative url) anchor and normally replaces the # and the href attribute: <a name="top"> instead of <a href="/index.htm#top">. I suppose that using both (name + href) confuses bots and *could* stop 'em from following such links. A guess though.

However, to get the best from both worlds (Usability & SE's) i use plain href absolute links without mouseovers, without name attribute but plus the title attribute - which shows a nice baloon description of the link on mouseover anyway.

<a href="http*//www.example.com/widgets.htm" title="Widgets from Example.com">
Widgets from Example.com</a>

[Freshman]

Thanks, Yidaki!

You seem to be my guardian angel at this forum today! :)

Thanks again!

[keyplyr]

Normally all you would see here is the site name and any description would come after the </a> tag. ( which I guess is what they call surrounding text ) Would you suggest that the whole description becomes the link text and ends up underlined? - Perplexed

Yes, just your site title... or one, two or three KWs, which ever is best for the individual page.

As I previously mentioned, I've had excellent luck with sites using exactly what I have suggested either in the email link request, or from my link-back info page where I offer cut 'n paste link text (a short and a long version) as well as logo graphics.

[tedster]

without name attribute but plus the title attribute

I've yet to see unique title attribute text in the index of any search engine, but title attributes are nice for the user. Similarly, I doubt very much that mouseover text for a status bar change is going to be indexed -- after all, it's javascript.

I would be very interested in proof that either of these factors have any effect on search engines. I've tested both and never see evidence.

[glengara]

There's some interesting discussions and testing going on in other forums on this. Particularly the relationship between Alt text and link text, and why in links, Alts rather than Titles seem to be considered by G.

[Yidaki]

>tested both and never see evidence.

Me neither. But i like the nice ballon tips ...

... to get the best from both worlds (Usability & SE's) ...

Regarding javascript, allthough it's safe to use mouseovers [webmasterworld.com] i wouldn't use it. It's bloating the code and i feel it's annoying if the status bar doesn't show me the real url onmouseover.