Talk:Anchor text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


"...Although the search engines are well aware of anchor text manipulation, not much change can be expected..." Google has just answered that issue with their new patent. Please see the Google patent. It does penalise unrelated anchor text. I do have a full article and analysis dedicated to this but I am not allowed to include the URL link because Wikipedia does not permit links.

"Much has been written on anchor text which is available on the web today." ... come on.. -- 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

this entry only has one sentence that's about anchor text, the rest is technically about google bombing. I think it should be highlighted that the first hyperlink is a hyperlink with the anchor text....'hyperlink'.

Not a stub[edit]

I believe it isn't a stub anymore. --Akral 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC) i believe in the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be English?[edit]

"The text that composes a link textual, that is that one comprised between tag the HTML (still) of opening and the respective one tag of closing (). The contained words in a link textual can contribute to determine the page towards which link the tip."

I know what this is talking about more due to my own experience in using HTML than from what the words actually say. I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to be saying. What is "between tag the HTML (still) of opening"? Or how about "respective one tag of closing ()"? Even "the page towards which link the tip". Link the tip? Tip of what? What is this going on about?

As a native English speaker I really feel this article should be revised. Even if it could be argued that this might make sense (ie., even if an explanation could be provided), I believe that Wikipedia should be easily readable. Wikipedia is intended as a source of knowledge. Based on this information I wouldn't have learned a thing. (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

===My thought exactly. The first paragraph is unintelligible. This is obviously an electronic translation from another language. Couldn't take it, I made the edits. Took out the information about link text since the article is about anchor test. Adding my id. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Whiskeyricard. The current revision is much more legible than the previous one. - (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Regarding this statement:

webmasters tend to misuse anchor text quite often this way: Today our president has signed another treaty. To know more, click here.

It's a hot debate whether or not "click here" is really an abuse of anchor text or not. I don't think Wikipedia should take a side on the issue, only elaborate on the debate. (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== I would say that misuse is not the same as abuse. And click here is not good web design. So I'd suggest that this not be changed. Whiskeyricard (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it is debatable whether "click here" is good web design, it isn't Wikipedia's place to explicitly state that it is "misuse" of anchor text; simply elaborating on the issue seems a reasonable compromise to promote the neutrality of the article. The current revision, in my opinion, does not provide a neutral representation of the debate. - (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of Internal Linking Use of Anchor Text[edit]

I think an internal explanation and use of anchor text should be added to this article. Civicseo (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)