Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This a summary of my understanding of anchor text and hash tags, along with a question. I'm looking for confirmation of my assumptions and an answer to the question. Here we go: Given these two links on a page in order, Google will use the anchor text "first" a) First b) a) Second Given these two links on a page in order, Google will use the anchor text "Second" a) First b) Second Given these three links on a page in order, Google will use the anchor text "Second" and "Third" a) First b) Second c) Third Is this consistent with your understanding of using hash tags to get around the first link rule? Here's my question: If I have the following 4 links on a page, does 50% of the link juice go to Page A and 50% to Page B; OR 25% to Page A and 75% to page B; OR something else? www.example.com/Page-A.html www.example.com/Page-B.html#anchor1 www.example.com/Page-B.html#anchor2 www.example.com/Page-B.html#anchor3 Thanks in advance.

I've been wrestling with this one for a while. Take a standard small web site navigation with nav links for: Products Solutions Support Learning Center I believe having drop downs to show the sub-pages of each category provides a better user experience, but it also bloats my links per page in the navigation from 4 to 24. Most of the additional links are useful for user experience, but not search purposes. So, 2-years after Google's changing of how it treats nofollows (which used to be the easy answer to this question), what is considered best practice? A) Go ahead and add the full 24 nav links on each page. The user experience outweighs the SEO benefits of fewer links and Google doesn't worry too much about nav links relative to main body links. B) Stick to only 4 nav options. Having 20 additional links on every page is a big deal and removing them is worth the user experience hit. I can still get to all levels of this small site within 2-3 clicks and do cross category linking to mitigate silos. C) Use some technical voodoo with js links or iframes to hide the nav links from Google and get the best of both worlds. D) Do something that is not one of the first three choices. Does anyone feel strongly about any of the above options or is this a user-preference type of situation where it doesn't make much difference which option you choose on a small 100-200 page site? I'm really looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this. -DV

I have two architecture related questions. Fewer folders is better. For example, www.site.com/product should rank better than www.site.com/foldera/folderb/product, all else constant. However, to what extreme does it make sense to remove folders? With a small site of 100 or so pages, why not put all files in the main directory? You'd have to manually build the navigation versus tying navigation to folder structure, but would the benefit justify the additional effort on a small site? I see a lot of sites with expansive footer menus on the home page and sometimes on every page. I can see how that would help indexing and user experience by making every page a click or two apart. However, what does that do to the flow of link juice? Does Google degrade the value of internal footer links like they do external footer links? If Google does degrade internal footer links, then having a bunch of footer links would waste link juice by sending a large portion of juice through degraded links, wouldn't it? Thank you in advance, -Derek

For a number of reasons I'm confined to having to do a client side redirect for html pages. Am I right in thinking that Google treats zero seconds roughly the same as proper 301 redirects? Anyone have experience with zero second meta refresh redirects, good or bad?