On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:41:26 +0100, Pete Thomas
<invalid@reply-via-site.com> wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:54:03 +0100, Pete Thomas
>> <invalid@reply-via-site.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal text is counted
>>> as an invisible link.
>>
>> I wouldn't think so, not normally. This doesn't mean you can go
>> covering your homage site to the Pope in covert links to hot pix of
>> Kylie in her knickers though... for instance...
>
>
>Thanks for the swift reply.
>
>No links to Kylie (or worse) ,

Better?

> I was thinking of including anchor text
>in some blurb on a page, links to other pages to the site. But the
>links are not necessary for navigation as that is already very clear. I
>just think it looks better if that paragraph didn't have lots of
>underlining sprinkled around, purely an aesthetic issue but I can see
>how it could be construed as trying to mislead.

If it's purely cosmetic and it isn't underhand then I don't see a
problem. Google have no right to dictate the presentation of your web
site.

>I'm not sure a robot would pick it up from the CSS, but I thought a
>competitor could file a complaint.

So what if they did? I wouldn't worry about a small thing like that.
Google have bigger things to worry about...

BB
--
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...joy-peace.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...andmother.html