Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal text is counted
as an invisible link. What I mean is that the CSS defines that the link
looks just like normal text (same colour, no underline, normal weight)
and in amongst the text it does not look like a 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.



--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD.
Discussion forum, free stuff and discounts - www.breakfastroom.co.uk
***********
Contact via the Breakfast Room

"Pete Thomas" <invalid@reply-via-site.com> wrote in message
news7SdnVz355cRIHDZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
> Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal text is counted as
> an invisible link. What I mean is that the CSS defines that the link looks
> just like normal text (same colour, no underline, normal weight) and in
> amongst the text it does not look like a 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.

You mean the link text looks the same as font and blends in. It will count
the same.

Stacey

--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com

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...

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

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. What I mean is that the CSS defines that the link
> looks just like normal text (same colour, no underline, normal weight)
> and in amongst the text it does not look like a 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.

Google does fetch CSS files AFAIK, but I guess they just do some analyses
on it, like they published some time ago on HTML.

Technically they can "see" that you did that, but only if they parse the
HTML and CSS and find out what visually is happening. That's quite an
expensive process, so I doubt it is currently happening.

Maybe they are able to detect simple cases, but with CSS one can make it
quite hard to detect in a simple way.

I want to do an experiment on my site, for one simple reason, I get quite
some bots that grab the first 10 links, then get those pages, and get the
first 3 or so links on those pages. I have the feeling that they are
looking for email, and want to start reporting those.

Comment spam has dried up recently, no idea if this is just a temporary
thing, or that bleep has been noticing that I bleeped away quite some
sites :-D.

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

Installing and configuring Apache on Windows XP (virtual hosting):
http://johnbokma.com/windows/apache-...-hosts-xp.html

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) , 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.

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


--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD.
Discussion forum, free stuff and discounts - www.breakfastroom.co.uk
***********
Contact via the Breakfast Room

Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
> "Pete Thomas" <invalid@reply-via-site.com> wrote in message
> news7SdnVz355cRIHDZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
>> Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal text is counted as
>> an invisible link. What I mean is that the CSS defines that the link looks
>> just like normal text (same colour, no underline, normal weight) and in
>> amongst the text it does not look like a 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.
>
> You mean the link text looks the same as font and blends in. It will count
> the same.


Do you mean it will count the same as an invisible link (hence a bad
thing) or the same as normal text, (ie not bad but it's value as a link
with relevant anchor text is nil).

I just wanted to clarify as Big Bill's answer suggested it was not a
problem.

--
Pete Thomas - www.petethomas.co.uk
***********
On-line saxophone exercises, composition and jazz theory courses,
Saxophone Instruction DVD.
Discussion forum, free stuff and discounts - www.breakfastroom.co.uk
***********
Contact via the Breakfast Room

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

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:44:52 +0100, Pete Thomas
<invalid@reply-via-site.com> wrote:

>Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>> "Pete Thomas" <invalid@reply-via-site.com> wrote in message
>> news7SdnVz355cRIHDZRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
>>> Does anyone know whether a link that looks like normal text is counted as
>>> an invisible link. What I mean is that the CSS defines that the link looks
>>> just like normal text (same colour, no underline, normal weight) and in
>>> amongst the text it does not look like a 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.
>>
>> You mean the link text looks the same as font and blends in. It will count
>> the same.
>
>
>Do you mean it will count the same as an invisible link (hence a bad
>thing) or the same as normal text, (ie not bad but it's value as a link
>with relevant anchor text is nil).
>
>I just wanted to clarify as Big Bill's answer suggested it was not a
>problem.

So does my second answer.

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