Descriptions after the Hyperlink Text - Do they count?

[! !]

:confused:

It is a given that hyperlinked text counts towards keyword rankings SERPs -
and - possibly ALT Tags and Title Attributes -

But is there any convincing evidence that the DESCRIPTION given after the hyperlink will have any SERPs effect...

Of course, it IS VALUABLE to Humans - but it is algorithmically helpful :confused:
______________________________________________

Also what factors influence IMAGE "Serps" in the Google Image results?

It seems that a highly placed IMAGE for a popular Topic or Person -
can have an ENORMOUS influence on a Web sites's visitorship
(especially since Google and Yahoo now show the same results)

[seobook]

I believe Yahoo! weighs in the title attribute slightly, but I think Google ignores it.

[Daria_Goetsch]

[It is a given that hyperlinked text counts towards keyword rankings SERPs -
and - possibly ALT Tags and Title Attributes -

But is there any convincing evidence that the DESCRIPTION given after the hyperlink will have any SERPs effect...

Of course, it IS VALUABLE to Humans - but it is algorithmically helpful]


I don't know of any absolute evidence that a text "description" following the hyperlink would be looked at any differently than text on the page by the search engine robots. Text on the page is important, so for that reason, text on the page is valuable for indexing purposes.

----------------------

[Also what factors influence IMAGE "Serps" in the Google Image results?

It seems that a highly placed IMAGE for a popular Topic or Person -
can have an ENORMOUS influence on a Web sites's visitorship
(especially since Google and Yahoo now show the same results)]


I haven't dealt much with Google image results myself. As always, include your alt text for each image for users who are disabled or surf without images on, as well as appropriate keywords included in the alt description of your images. If your images are describing products it is especially important to include alt image text.

[Anthony Parsons]

Whether it is or isn't, I think is really irrelevant. It has its purposes more for the user than an SEO use. No user is going to hang around long if they run the mouse over a hyperlink to find a stuffed title message pop-up on their screen. I generally think, YUK, I'm out of here.

If it fits the design, use it, if it doesn't don't. I use it for purposes such as:

<a href="http://www.whatever.com" title="Discuss Whatever">Step 2</a>

or

<a href="http://www.whatever.com" title="Purchase Gold Earings">Buy Now</a>

Not

<a href="http://www.whatever.com" title="spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam">Spam</a>

[St0n3y]

I don't see how a particular description can weighed toward the site being linked to. the SE could weight the text before and after the link, but by doing that the description above yours would also be weighted toward your link. That is probably what happens but not much of a factor over all.

[theBPC]

It is a given that hyperlinked text counts towards keyword rankings SERPs -
and - possibly ALT Tags and Title Attributes -


fyi - As of 12 May 04, Jill Whalen tested the title attribute in <a> tags and stated that Google is not indexing it -(http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6219&hl=title\=)

[seobook]

fyi - As of 12 May 04, Jill Whalen tested the title attribute in <a> tags and stated that Google is not indexing it -(http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6219&hl=title\=)

Did she check Yahoo!? they tend to use more page data so their paid inclusion partners make them more money

[qwerty]

I don't know if Jill checked Yahoo, but I just did. I tried a search on the title attribute of a link in quotes, along with a word that appears on both the page containing the link and the link's target. There were no results returned, although both pages are indexed by Yahoo.

[Dodger]

It is my understanding that not all browsers support the Title Attribute. It was introduced with HTML 4 and if a browser does support it, they do so in different ways.

For instance, if the HREF references a mailto URL, the Lynx Browser (this is the one recommended by Google for seeing what googlebot sees) will use the TITLE value as the subject line for the letter. However, note that Lynx is the only browser to support this functionality.

With the differences between browsers in regard to this attribute, I find it hard to believe that any good SE (especially Google) will put any value on something that renders radically different across so many of the browsers. There ARE people out there using pre-IE4, older Netscape, text browsers, etc. where this attribute will go unseen (basicly hidden).

[steve sardell]

But is there any convincing evidence that the DESCRIPTION given after the hyperlink will have any SERPs effect...
IMO, it will not have much effect if any on the page being linked to, but crafted descriptions certainly can leave a mark for the resource page.

[bwelford]

Just for the record, the Title for an image is there as an Accessibility feature for those who have problems seeing the image as it was intended.

The <ALT> tag for an image is there for those who choose to surf without displaying images.

That's the definitions. Why any search engine should treat the two differently is beyond me. I'm sure the spammers don't treat them differently. :rolleyes:

[! !]

Link Exchanges seems to no longer be a surefire way of improving keyword positions on Google's SERPs

even with High-PageRanked links - something now called - PR BLOCK


Backwards link credits seem to have a more complex filtering algorithm than ever before - - - before they are credited by Google to a Web site

-----------------------------------

SO-O NO-OW, The next-greatest Link Strategy is "TRIANGULAR"
Link Exchanges - where several sites participate in "Sharing Links"

But Not Necessarity DIRECTLY with One Another.


As Techniques and Strategies become more complex - Google's Algorithms will become More Complex and Unpredictable


It will be interesting to watch this new competition play out :rolleyes:

[seobook]

Link Exchanges seems to no longer be a surefire way of improving keyword positions on Google's SERPs

even with High-PageRanked links - something now called - [B]PR BAN

Backwards link credits seem to have a more complex filtering algorithm than ever before - - - before they are credited by Google to a Web site

???
who said?
where did that get that silly PR BAN name?

i bet there are still many extremely high ranking sites that are primarily high ranking due to reciprocal linking. often times good resources cross reference one another. it is kinda how the web organizes. lets view an example, shall we?

a few months ago Danny linked to my site. now what you are saying is that Google would want to punish my site for linking back to SearchEngineWatch?

Google would not want to impose a strict reciprocal link type penalty or they would be encouraging the fragmentation of the web, ripping apart the very ability of the web to self organize into a collective knowledge space.

I have seen too many examples of highly ranking closely related sites linking back and forth to believe in this theory.

also many people have been doing that triangular stuff for a while now. I know I have :)

[Dodger]

also many people have been doing that triangular stuff for a while now. I know I have :)

I am still wondering how they came up with the name "triangular". To me, it makes more sense to call it "circular". A triangle's sides are equal, and I would assume that not all links from one site to the other are equal by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, a triangle assumes only three sides ... would this not also work with four? I have never heard of a four sided triangle before though.

...just a few musings on that matter. Carry on Gentlemen.

[seobook]

I am still wondering how they came up with the name "triangular". To me, it makes more sense to call it "circular". A triangle's sides are equal, and I would assume that not all links from one site to the other are equal by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, a triangle assumes only three sides ... would this not also work with four? I have never heard of a four sided triangle before though.

...just a few musings on that matter. Carry on Gentlemen.

well the triangular concept is more for doing it within your own network of sites registered by proxy which are hosted on different IP C block hosts.

i think the name triagular just is one level above geometrically and logically so it is easy to say it that way...

to do it best with other webmasters it should be like an a to b b to c c to d
at least that is how it make sense.

[steve sardell]

to do it best with other webmasters it should be like an a to b b to c c to d
at least that is how it make sense

From what I have understood the triangle name and geo design was simply used for descriptive purposes. A > B > C > A This is by no means anything new.

Aaron, in your method above (a) does not get an apparent link from anyone

[seobook]

From what I have understood the triangle name and geo design was simply used for descriptive purposes. A > B > C > A This is by no means anything new.

Aaron, in your method above (a) does not get an apparent link from anyone

i forgot to do the d back to a. i guess its easier to just do it than to write it out.

everybody link to me and i will link back from other sites out on the web...;)

in all actuallity many webmasters own at least two domains and allow links out on one and get links in on the other.

i own
a & c
steve owns
b & d
and so the links look like this
a-b b-c c-d d-a
i have done that a few times, but not that often.

[steve sardell]

Hi Aaron,

I knew what you were meaning anyway.

BTB keep up the good news alerts--they are great!

[St0n3y]

IMO I don't think its so much reciprocal links that are being devalued (though I believe a one-way link holds a higher value) I think that Google is looking for ways to measure quality of those reciprocal links. If I link to you from a page that contains 25+ other ougoing links and you link back from the same, that is probably not considered a high quality link. Vs. If I link to you from a page with less that 5 outgoing links and you do the same, that would hold a much higher value. I dont' have any evidence of this, just some of my thoughts about the future of linking.

[Webmaster T]

The PageRank paper does mention that link analysis does include the text surrounding a link so I would assume that includes the description after a link or the text a link is embedded in. There was discussion about this on another forum some time ago and the conclusion at that time was that it was pretty tough to determine exactly how much text is analysed and how much weight it has in the ranking algo. IMO, the advantages to a user and usability of the link far outweigh any considerations for SE.

IMO, Title attributes aren't indexed or weighted on any engine for the same reasons img alts aren't weighted as heavily as they were in the past. They would be susceptible to "inappropriate" keyword stuffing and stacking and are prime targets for this activity since they do not appear in the visible content. I also believe SE know what would happen to the functionality of the attribute if they did decide to index and weight them. IMO, the tag was added for accessability reasons and that goes out the window once it is a target for "inappropriate" activity.

[steve sardell]

It is a given that hyperlinked text counts towards keyword rankings SERPs -
and - possibly ALT Tags and Title Attributes -

But is there any convincing evidence that the DESCRIPTION given after the hyperlink will have any SERPs effect...

Last week Robb brought a long forgotten paper back to my attention, an older paper, jointly written by some IBMers and Professor Jon Kleinberg of topic distillation fame. Discussed in this paper is a "system ... built on an algorithm that performs a local analysis of both text and links to arrive at a 'global consensus' of the best resources for the topic" Although written in 97 it is a foundation of much of todays search world. For more insight read analyzing hyperlink structure and associated text (http://decweb.ethz.ch/WWW7/1898/com1898.htm)

[! !]

Possibly:


text near each hyperlink may be factored into or correlated with the keywords of the hyperlink




Body Text versus Hyperlinked Text in the Body


Is TEXT in the Body weighed differently than Hyperlinked BodyText for the PAGE THEY ARE ON - if they are weighted the same - this would, by default,
make hyperlinked text more valuable because of it's extra power in helping the site LINKED TO as well as - LINKED FROM

[seobook]

link text is likely given some weighting boost in many search engines...as a link sticks out or references something that may be important.

[I, Brian]

Remember it's not always just search engines spiders you want through your link. :)

[rogerd]

It's pretty clear that anchor text has been special for both destination and, to a lesser extent, origin pages... nevertheless, the description text could affect the link text via proximity, and will also compose part of the overall page text and total keyword density.

[AussieWebmaster]

Funny I was the start of the thread over at HighRankings... I was passing along info I received from one of their engineers... I don't think he was trying to mislead me... maybe he was just expressing what should be a standard way of doing links etc.

[! !]

A Blossoming Trend

Triangular Linking among Three or more sites is theorized to be more effective...

and One Way linking, of course, more effective than Direct Reciprocal Links

Rumor or Evidenced :confused:

[St0n3y]

I beleived strongly in one-way links (and still do) but there is also something called RankSinks that Google can penalyze (probably not the right word, maybe devalue) for. Essentially a RankSink is a site that gets links but doesn't give them.

We have a pretty comprehensive white paper ("http://www.pole-position-web.com/research/white-papers.htm) that covers this and other PR technologies that might be a useful read regarding this subject.