<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Anchor Text For Internal Links</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.userdrivenchange.com/anchor-text-for-internal-links/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.userdrivenchange.com/anchor-text-for-internal-links/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=anchor-text-for-internal-links</link>
	<description>Give Them What They Want</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:06:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MikeTek</title>
		<link>http://www.userdrivenchange.com/anchor-text-for-internal-links/#comment-193</link>
		<dc:creator>MikeTek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.100dollarseo.com/?p=273#comment-193</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s safe to assume that 710 words of anchor text was a mistake - although I&#039;m sure the SEOs in charge of major websites in the upper traffic brackets play with all sorts of things we don&#039;t notice on an average day.  They&#039;ve got so much attention from the bots - they can go from SEO theory to fact in less than a day (links from other websites being the exception, of course).  When it comes to internal PageRank distribution I&#039;d assume a site like Inc.com is able to see the effects almost in real time after making a change to anchor text or other factors.  Reason enough to play around and see what the deal is.

For conventional purposes, though - I&#039;d assume linking 710 words won&#039;t help you much (and certainly won&#039;t make for a great user experience).  When it comes to search engines, though, I almost always find that what seems like an obvious spam filter trigger ends up either unnoticed or rewarded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s safe to assume that 710 words of anchor text was a mistake &#8211; although I&#8217;m sure the SEOs in charge of major websites in the upper traffic brackets play with all sorts of things we don&#8217;t notice on an average day.  They&#8217;ve got so much attention from the bots &#8211; they can go from SEO theory to fact in less than a day (links from other websites being the exception, of course).  When it comes to internal PageRank distribution I&#8217;d assume a site like Inc.com is able to see the effects almost in real time after making a change to anchor text or other factors.  Reason enough to play around and see what the deal is.</p>
<p>For conventional purposes, though &#8211; I&#8217;d assume linking 710 words won&#8217;t help you much (and certainly won&#8217;t make for a great user experience).  When it comes to search engines, though, I almost always find that what seems like an obvious spam filter trigger ends up either unnoticed or rewarded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

