• http://www.search-usability.com/ Shari Thurow

    Hi all-

    I’m not one to disagree with Matt Cutts, but putting related article links at the top of the page often interferes with users/readers trying to complete a task. Interrupting a how-to article isn’t a good idea, either.

    Perhaps Matt should have been more specific….

    My 2 cents.

    –Shari

  • http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    I’ll continue rewarding my patient readers with \further reading\ links at the bottom of my dissertations — er, articles.

  • http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ Matt Cutts

    Hey Shari, I don’t think I said anything in my talk about putting related-article links at the top of the page; I find that distracting (and sometimes annoying) too. When I was talking about links in blog posts, I was just pointing out that if you save your most important link–the one you want people to click–all the way until the end, then you’re \burying the lede\ a little bit because there’s a good chance that the user won’t find or click it. I wasn’t talking about search engine rankings in that part of my talk.

    On the \Google disregards the canonical tag when it can hurt your site\ point, I would phrase it instead as \Google reserves the right to disregard the canonical tag, but most of the time we trust it. As a result, you should be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot using the canonical tag.\ The example I gave of a large computer manufacturer shooting themselves in the foot by using rel=canonical to point to a 404 page was just an example of what not to do. :)

  • http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ Matt Cutts

    P.S. Apologies for the slashes in the comment above. That’s what happened when reCAPTCHA said I didn’t get the CAPTCHA right. :)

  • http://www.search-usability.com/ Shari Thurow

    Hi Matt-

    Thank you for clarifying. I get misquoted and misinterpreted at conference sessions as well. That didn’t sound like something you’d say.

    To me, a well-selected embedded text link within an article (that doesn’t heavily interfere with legibility) has always been a great findability, usability, call-to-action, SEO, etc. type of “thing” to do. It provides some of the best context, quite often.

    I’m with Michael, too. I always link to related articles. Now we just need to teach people how to do it right instead of the annoying garbage we see on many publisher sites.

    –Shari

  • http://www.planetc1.com/ chiropractic

    Thanks for the summary Barry and also thanks for all the coverage you provided during the week. It is appreciated.

  • http://gasyoun gasyoun

    “First link” is a must, but is a logo counted or not?

  • Friscozen

    Why is it that “Google will be looking at why exact domain matches rank so well”??? If I have a domain name “www.SmellyShoes.com” …I may have bought it to create compelling, interesting, unique, link-worthy content for my website. Do you really think I would get that domain to write about how to impress my mother-in-law instead of my life’s experience with shoes??? C’mon now, who the heck convinced Matt Cutts to look into this witch-hunt???
    As far as I am concerned and most other smart thinking creators, we want Google to stick with giving prominence to the Keyword in domain as there is grade 1 level of IQ needed to know that it is based on that particular subject and thus justifying the high rank as deserved.

  • http://www.webstatsart.com/ Webstats Art

    Less people are listening to Matt Cutts and his page rank has dropped. Obviously the google search engine engine is finding his stuff to be less relevant? Take a look at the stats http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mattcutts.com#