8 ms·

The link is buried beneath about two feet of content and would require you to read every word of the article to even know it's there. Honest placement for this

The link is buried beneath about two feet of content and would require you to read every word of the article to even know it's there. Honest placement for this link would have been top of the fold, when you first mention Gruber...but you (correctly) surmised that might take some steam away from your own posting...so you buried it. No need to get angry and downvote; there's a reason why places like the NYT, SEOLand, etc., are so stingy with their links.

sullivandanny 16y ago
I put it further in the article because I thought it made sense for people to actually read the article rather than immediately click out -- and to have the link where I first started quoting John on a first reference. I did indeed debate whether to put the link right in the lead. I did indeed not want people to immediately click out to read and potentially not read what I wrote. There was no "dishonesty" in doing that. The point of writing something is for people to actually read it. You've got three main people who will read the article. First, most of my own readers, who probably don't know John and don't particularly worry about what he has to say on the SEO front. The don't need a link to his article right from the opening. They came to read what our authors have to say on a topic. Second, people who eventually will find this article years from now to learn about HTML title tags. At the time they come, the particular debate on this day won't matter. The advice, however, will. I actually debated whether I should even mention John's article in the opening for that reason, so as not to potentially date a future resource. Third, people who may have read John's article and then somehow learned of my article. They aren't looking for a link right in the opening -- they read the article. To make up for it being further down, to emphasize it more, I deliberately chose to link using the title of his article, rather than say from something like "write" or "post." In terms of being "stingy" with links, Search Engine Land links out all the time. All the time. My article contains seven external links. The internal links to our own articles also contain external links. If you're being downvoted, it's because you came in with an inaccurate comment and yourself got all angry about it. You missed the link, probably because you didn't bother to actually read the article, rather than it being so invisible as you'd like to make it out to be. Then, in your rush to condemn me, you didn't even bother to viewsource to double check that there was a link there, something that would have taken all of about five seconds to do. When I pointed out your mistake, rather than apologize, say "oops, I missed it" and maybe suggest it could be more visible, you got even more defensive about it. You were wrong in your comment. You still haven't bothered to apologize for being wrong. Instead, you compound the error with allegations that my site is link "stingy" and that I somehow have "dishonest" link placement (if I were really trying to be "dishonest" from an SEO perspective, I'd have nofollowed the link). I'm sorry I parroted your tone. That got to me, the attitude you displayed. I should have simply responded that yes, there was a link in the story. Now I've added a further one right in the lead of the story, which perhaps you'll find more reassuring. Of course, Google seems to give anchor text credit to the first reference of a link, so that means John's article is now likely to be relevant for the word "dishing" rather than "Title Junk," but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost on you.
- codingthewheel 16y ago
  Look, I don't want to get into some online vendetta over this. My God. I thought you wrote a good article. I upvoted the thing. I'm even upvoting this comment where you basically take me, one of your loyal readers, apart. It was at 4, now it's at 5 - that was me. So much for your "anger" argument. The larger point here, and your correct response, was simply "who cares?" If you're going to take the time to write a 12-paragraph explanation of every article you write, to every reader, troll, and conspicuous other who has a bone to pick with you, then I don't know how you manage to get any writing done at all. And lastly, this little bit of ad hominem... but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost on you. ...is just in poor taste. Never in a million years would I say this to a reader.

sullivandanny 16y ago

I put it further in the article because I thought it made sense for people to actually read the article rather than immediately click out -- and to have the link where I first started quoting John on a first reference. I did indeed debate whether to put the link right in the lead. I did indeed not want people to immediately click out to read and potentially not read what I wrote. There was no "dishonesty" in doing that. The point of writing something is for people to actually read it. You've got three main people who will read the article. First, most of my own readers, who probably don't know John and don't particularly worry about what he has to say on the SEO front. The don't need a link to his article right from the opening. They came to read what our authors have to say on a topic. Second, people who eventually will find this article years from now to learn about HTML title tags. At the time they come, the particular debate on this day won't matter. The advice, however, will. I actually debated whether I should even mention John's article in the opening for that reason, so as not to potentially date a future resource. Third, people who may have read John's article and then somehow learned of my article. They aren't looking for a link right in the opening -- they read the article. To make up for it being further down, to emphasize it more, I deliberately chose to link using the title of his article, rather than say from something like "write" or "post." In terms of being "stingy" with links, Search Engine Land links out all the time. All the time. My article contains seven external links. The internal links to our own articles also contain external links. If you're being downvoted, it's because you came in with an inaccurate comment and yourself got all angry about it. You missed the link, probably because you didn't bother to actually read the article, rather than it being so invisible as you'd like to make it out to be. Then, in your rush to condemn me, you didn't even bother to viewsource to double check that there was a link there, something that would have taken all of about five seconds to do. When I pointed out your mistake, rather than apologize, say "oops, I missed it" and maybe suggest it could be more visible, you got even more defensive about it. You were wrong in your comment. You still haven't bothered to apologize for being wrong. Instead, you compound the error with allegations that my site is link "stingy" and that I somehow have "dishonest" link placement (if I were really trying to be "dishonest" from an SEO perspective, I'd have nofollowed the link). I'm sorry I parroted your tone. That got to me, the attitude you displayed. I should have simply responded that yes, there was a link in the story. Now I've added a further one right in the lead of the story, which perhaps you'll find more reassuring. Of course, Google seems to give anchor text credit to the first reference of a link, so that means John's article is now likely to be relevant for the word "dishing" rather than "Title Junk," but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost on you.

codingthewheel 16y ago
Look, I don't want to get into some online vendetta over this. My God. I thought you wrote a good article. I upvoted the thing. I'm even upvoting this comment where you basically take me, one of your loyal readers, apart. It was at 4, now it's at 5 - that was me. So much for your "anger" argument. The larger point here, and your correct response, was simply "who cares?" If you're going to take the time to write a 12-paragraph explanation of every article you write, to every reader, troll, and conspicuous other who has a bone to pick with you, then I don't know how you manage to get any writing done at all. And lastly, this little bit of ad hominem... but that's another consideration that I had in mind that was probably lost on you. ...is just in poor taste. Never in a million years would I say this to a reader.