Should http:// be included in the link to get noticed by search engines?

Hi,

I recently heard that when inserting links to a website on a web page
one should do

<a href="http://www.someserver.com">http://www.someserver.com</a>

instead of

<a href="http://www.someserver.com">www.someserver.com</a>

to get noticed by search engines. Is it true that "http://" is
important to be include in the visible part of the link on the web
page? If so for which search engine or this is just a rumor.

Thanks
Joe

On 15/7/04 10:04 pm, TAM wrote:

Hi,

I recently heard that when inserting links to a website on a web page
one should do

a href="http://www.someserver.com">http://www.someserver.com</a

instead of

a href="http://www.someserver.com">www.someserver.com</a

to get noticed by search engines. Is it true that "http://" is
important to be include in the visible part of the link on the web
page? If so for which search engine or this is just a rumor.

Thanks
Joe

Sounds like nonsense to me. If you're chasing a good position in Google,
then you're much better off with something like this on your inbound links:

<a href="http://www.someserver.com">keyword-1 keyword-2</a>

Phil

--
Philip Ronan
phil.ronanzzz (AT) virgin (DOT) net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:16:51 +0100, Philip Ronan
<phil.ronanzzz (AT) virgin (DOT) net> wrote:

On 15/7/04 10:04 pm, TAM wrote:

Hi,

I recently heard that when inserting links to a website on a web page
one should do

a href="http://www.someserver.com">http://www.someserver.com</a

instead of

a href="http://www.someserver.com">www.someserver.com</a

to get noticed by search engines. Is it true that "http://" is
important to be include in the visible part of the link on the web
page? If so for which search engine or this is just a rumor.

Thanks
Joe

Sounds like nonsense to me. If you're chasing a good position in Google,
then you're much better off with something like this on your inbound
links:

a href="http://www.someserver.com">keyword-1 keyword-2</a

Seems that form of link, while recommended, is awfully awkward.

I mean, who's gonna link to opro.org with the keywords "community
orchestra"? Who's gonna link to Wonder Bread with the keywords "white
bread"? (Am I making sense?)

It would seem more natural to link to a site with the name of the site,
something that really identifies the site. Keywords are descriptive, but
sure don't identify. Or am I missing something important?

Seems that form of link, while recommended, is awfully awkward.

I mean, who's gonna link to opro.org with the keywords "community
orchestra"? Who's gonna link to Wonder Bread with the keywords "white
bread"? (Am I making sense?)

And that is exactly why URL's with keywords in it are better.
<a href="http://www.keyword1-keyword2.com">www.keyword1-keyword2.com</a>

Neal wrote in
<opsa7l9ows6v6656 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:16:51 +0100, Philip Ronan
phil.ronanzzz (AT) virgin (DOT) net> wrote:

On 15/7/04 10:04 pm, TAM wrote:

Hi,

I recently heard that when inserting links to a website on a web
page one should do

a href="http://www.someserver.com">http://www.someserver.com</a

instead of

a href="http://www.someserver.com">www.someserver.com</a

to get noticed by search engines. Is it true that "http://" is
important to be include in the visible part of the link on the web
page? If so for which search engine or this is just a rumor.

Thanks
Joe

Sounds like nonsense to me. If you're chasing a good position in
Google, then you're much better off with something like this on your
inbound links:

a href="http://www.someserver.com">keyword-1 keyword-2</a

Seems that form of link, while recommended, is awfully awkward.

I mean, who's gonna link to opro.org with the keywords "community
orchestra"? Who's gonna link to Wonder Bread with the keywords "white
bread"? (Am I making sense?)

It would seem more natural to link to a site with the name of the
site, something that really identifies the site. Keywords are
descriptive, but sure don't identify. Or am I missing something
important?

Yup - Google boosts serps for search terms found in the link text.

In an ideal world one would brand one's site/product using the target search
terms and then get a URL that also used those terms. Perfection - search
terms in link text and href, both reflecting the brand.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On 16/7/04 3:52 am, Neal wrote:

Seems that form of link, while recommended, is awfully awkward.

I mean, who's gonna link to opro.org with the keywords "community
orchestra"? Who's gonna link to Wonder Bread with the keywords "white
bread"? (Am I making sense?)

It would seem more natural to link to a site with the name of the site,
something that really identifies the site. Keywords are descriptive, but
sure don't identify. Or am I missing something important?

Yes, linking to a site with the name of the site _would_ be a good idea.
What you're suggesting is linking to a site with the URL of the site, which
I think is a bad idea.

Look at it this way: who is going to search for your website by typing
"opro.org" into a search engine? And for that matter who is going to search
for it by typing in "community orchestra"?

Perhaps you would be better off with "Massachusetts Orchestra" or even
"Massachusetts Old Post Road Orchestra"?

Phil

--
Philip Ronan
phil.ronanzzz (AT) virgin (DOT) net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)

On 16/7/04 10:01 am, Philip Ronan wrote:

Yes, linking to a site with the name of the site _would_ be a good idea.
What you're suggesting is linking to a site with the URL of the site, which
I think is a bad idea.

...unless the site's URL contains your top keywords, of course.

--
Philip Ronan
phil.ronanzzz (AT) virgin (DOT) net
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)