Linking to yourself.

[Christof]

I saw a site recently that was ranking very well in the serps which had all it's keywords linking back to itself (it was probably doing wonders for its allinanchor:keyword results!)

The keywords themselves were disguised so that you couldn't see the anchor text until you ran your mouse over the phrases.

I've done it my site and have hit number 1 for the key words I'm targeting. (yay).

So, of course the question is, has anyone else tested this to see if it works as an SEO technique? Does Google take a dim view of a crazy amount of optimised linking going on within a page back to itself, or does it make no difference? Should I pull my head in and not risk it?

Thank you, oracle, that is webproworld.

Chris.

[jestep]

Since you are talking about making hidden text links, which I would view as more offensive than hidden text itself, I would say that you are running the chance of being banned completely for this technique.

I don't think that this technique could be used for an even remotely competitive search phrase, and it is just a matter of time before google closes the door.

Just my opinion, but I would stop doing it before its too late. Just because your site is Ok now, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow.

[rlrouse]

If you use hidden ANYTHING you're playing with fire.

[mtheory]

As long as you are using the technique to only help ranking your site for keywords and phrases that are COMPLETELY relevant to your site, I don't view it as unethical.

It is when sites use a technique to purposely deceive the search engines that it becomes a problem for everyone.

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by rlrouse

If you use hidden ANYTHING you're playing with fire.

"Hidden" implies deception.

What about content that is not visible, but helps a search engine properly index a graphically driven or interactive site?

[Weedy Lady]

I'm also interested in the hidden text thing, because I have some pages with absolutely no content other than the card sending form, due to the fact that the greeting card is all graphics, and usually java at that.

I use the message of the card as hidden text so the search engines will have something to see. If I didn't do that there would be no content at all as far as the SEs are concerned.

I'm not spamming. Really. Truly.

[kservik]

Originally Posted by Weedy Lady

I'm not spamming. Really. Truly.

You will be fine as far as I could see.

[MathsIsFun]

Weedy Lady, could you use the alt or name tag of the image to describe it?

That is totally legit, and encouraged, because not all people can see, or simply have graphics off (like the search engines do), so text that describes what could be seen is really good.

[Weedy Lady]

In many cases the image is the background of a table and there is no provision that I know of to put an alt designation inside of a <table etc> tag.

In other instances the image is part of the java presentation and again there is not a way to put in an alt tag.....other than writing a long descipption where you do the instructions on linking to the site to download java if you don't already have it.

And in still other instances the wording of the card, being terribly clever as cards are supposed to be, doesn't explicitly state the message.

When it's a card for Easter about Bubba Bunny, and that is part of the wording (repeated 2 or 3 times) there is no need for me to use the invisible text.

[MathsIsFun]

In your case there would seem to be an exception :) ... however, if Google has a piece of code that detects hidden text (now or in the future), then you may get penalized, unfairly or no.

I wish someone could tell us exactly what Google will do, all we can do is educated guessing.

Wouldn't it be great if Google (in the interests of improving the whole internet and by-the-by it's own search results) could give us webmasters a tool where we enter a URL and it does a full analysis of good and bad elements. I am not asking for any ranking advice from G, just some red flags, etc.

Anyway, you probly know all this, but you can use the page title and description meta tag in the page header, and you can also use a title tag with the table, too. That may all help.

And you can have a sitemap listing all your cards (I didn't check if you do or not), where you can use the right keywords in the link. This is also a legit way to help search engines understand your pages.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Mtheory

As long as you are using the technique to only help ranking your site for keywords and phrases that are COMPLETELY relevant to your site, I don't view it as unethical.

It is when sites use a technique to purposely deceive the search engines that it becomes a problem for everyone.

Since it can be logically argued that nothing is irrelevent, there are only levels of relevancy, justifying a "black hat" SEO technique based upon relevancy is a moot point.

Since the technique (there are some navigational exceptions to note one) is used solely for the purpose of manipulating said sites' SE rankings, and not for anything that benefits the human visitors to the site once they have arrived there, it is, and I agree with rlrouse, playing with fire.

Dave

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Mtheory

"Hidden" implies deception.

What about content that is not visible, but helps a search engine properly index a graphically driven or interactive site?

I would agree with rlrouse, I would not play with hiding text links or anything else. There are too many better ways to get a site ranked.