Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote:

> SEOwebMarket.com wrote:
>
>> Pete Thomas wrote:
>>> Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal text is counted
>>> as an invisible link.
>>> It is visible, but the fact that it is a link is not visible, which
>>> makes me wonder how this would be viewed by Google.
>>
>> An example of an "invisible link" that would NOT count (or count
>> against you), would be a text link that is the same color as the
>> background.
>
> Got proof of that?
>
> (and it would look pretty daft if it were a text link in a piece of
> body text - it would show a gap of course)

Which might not be that obvious of course, and can be overlooked at all.

--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Apache on XP: http://johnbokma.com/windows/apache-...-hosts-xp.html

I think that the reason he asked the question is because he (like I)
read about losers being penalized for "hiding" text by making it the
same color as the background. Some robots will just ignore those.

The only bad side to removing underlines from text links (regardless of
how you do it) for aesthetic reasons, is that viewers might not be able
to distinguish the fact that it IS a link and therefore not click on it.

Big Bill 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...
>
> BB

Billy, maybe you should look at what your insecure and unsure advice
(wouldn't think so, not normally) was - before you decide to criticize
what I wrote.

Billy, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things
I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response
were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational
thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

On 25 Aug 2006 09:20:48 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
<webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:

>I think that the reason he asked the question is because he (like I)
>read about losers being penalized for "hiding" text by making it the
>same color as the background. Some robots will just ignore those.

Can you not read you loser ?

The OP stated : Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal
text is counted as an invisible link.

Did you notice the words "looks like normal text"

He was NOT on about making the actual link/hypertext invisible.


>The only bad side to removing underlines from text links (regardless of
>how you do it) for aesthetic reasons, is that viewers might not be able
>to distinguish the fact that it IS a link and therefore not click on it.

Only losers like you.
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 25 Aug 2006 09:20:48 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
<webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:

>I think that the reason he asked the question is because he (like I)
>read about losers being penalized for "hiding" text by making it the
>same color as the background. Some robots will just ignore those.

What does SEO mean to you ? Self Educated Onanist ?

Learn to read what the question is and not what you think it is.
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 25 Aug 2006 09:35:47 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
<webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:

>
>Big Bill 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...
>>
>> BB
>
>Billy, maybe you should look at what your insecure and unsure advice
>(wouldn't think so, not normally)

One learns caution with experience. I try to stick with generalised
advice rather than solid assurances these days. Something you may not
live long enough to see the merit in, of course... :-)

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

Big Bill wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2006 09:35:47 -0700, "SEOwebMarket.com"
> One learns caution with experience. I try to stick with generalised
> advice rather than solid assurances these days. Something you may not
> live long enough to see the merit in, of course... :-)

If you don't know = don't answer. Pointless chat (spam) is very
unproductive in a group like this. Please chat in private. Thanks in
advance from eveyone that uses this group.

"SEOwebMarket.com" <webmail@seowebmarket.com> wrote:

> I think that the reason he asked the question is because he (like I)
> read about losers being penalized for "hiding" text by making it the
> same color as the background. Some robots will just ignore those.

If they do, it's probably limited to very specific and easy to detect
cases. (I had a hidden link for quite some time on my site to capture bad
bots, can't recall how I hid it though).

> The only bad side to removing underlines from text links (regardless of
> how you do it) for aesthetic reasons, is that viewers might not be able
> to distinguish the fact that it IS a link and therefore not click on it.

Depends a lot on the context, but yeah, some people only "see" links when
they are blue & underlined. But I am sure they will learn soon how links
might look on other sites.

--
John Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/

Firefox RSS: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/rss-and...bookmarks.html