Let's say I have a site listing a bunch of different products, hovering over each product brings up a "view more" tab, but not as an image, a div with text link...

<div class="tabbed-content">
    <section class="brand-profile">
        <a href="http://www.company.com/en/cooldrinks/coke" class="img-link"><img src="/docs/coke.jpg" alt=""></a>
            <div class="content">
                <h3><a href="http://www.company.com/en/cooldrinks/coke">Coke</a></h3>
                <a href="http://http://www.company.com/en/cooldrinks/coke" class="paragraph"></a>
                <a href="http://www.company.com/en/cooldrinks/coke" class="more">View More</a>
</div><!-- /.content -->
    </section><!-- /.profile -->    

Now this code is repeated for all products. But while product names differ, the "view more" is repeated over and over. I did a keyword analysis on the site, and it shows the word "view" (since it's text) as a keyword with 18% density, which could be close to spam. Would Google (and other search engines) penalise the site for the high density of a term such as "view" or "view more"? Would it be better to use, or would it work, a or just for each "View more" piece of text?

2 Answers 2


Keyword density is a myth at least it is now. So stop chasing keywords and density. It does not apply. Search engines want content.

You are concerned about being over optimized for the word view, but I would be concerned that you are over optimizing using links instead.

It appears that you are following some really really bad SEO advice. You will be slapped with a penalty eventually, but not for the word view, but for everything else I see.

Yes. Do not use read more and such phrases for links over and over again. These are so common that Google generally ignores them or gives them little weight. I would not worry about that, but I would change them none-the-less.

However, the cluster of links that are all the same gives me pause. I have never seen links used to this extreme. Beware of the Panda. It is being manually tuned by humans and targets example sites that are provided to Google by people who are tired of low quality sites performing well in the SERPs. Google admits to targeting specific sites and techniques and admits to soliciting sample sites for fine tuning the algorithm. You do not want to be on this list nor do you want to use a technique to game the SERPs that another site that has been reported uses.

My advice to you is not to worry about the little stuff- worry about the big stuff.

  • Thanks @closetoc. I'm pretty new to SEO, so I was just looking at some random sites to see what I can pick up. In this case I don't think it was deliberate for the page to try and gain rank with the duplicate links, I think it's just bad coding - the site is actually fine to use/navigate. Commented Nov 27, 2014 at 7:04
  • @FrancoisHuysamen Forgive my frankness. I try and keep people on the right path and sometimes all kinds of stuff gets posted that is misguided SEO. Part of the problem is that there are so many people trying to carve out a name for themselves in the SEO industry and parrot seriously bad advice. The whole SEO online advice thing is loaded with junk and none of it seems to go away. Even the true experts get it wrong sometimes and still these pages do not go away. That leaves those who search for good advice lost in a sea filled with sewage. It is a shame really. It hurts the wrong people.
    – closetnoc
    Commented Nov 27, 2014 at 7:09
  • I agree, that's why I posted the question here... while there is so much reading available online, it's difficult to find the best/correct information (especially for n00bs like me). Commented Nov 28, 2014 at 7:49
  • @FrancoisHuysamen Whew! I am glad that is not your code. But in a way, we could have avoided some issues too. This is a good place to find out SEO stuff. I like to cut through the clutter and waste that exists and get right to the heart of SEO. Others here do too. But still sometimes there is a cool-aide drinker here and there that pops-up. Please come back and ask some more- I am always here to help unless I fall over dead. I don't think that will happen for a while. ;-) Not at least till Monday. You can also click on the SEO tag and peruse some questions and answers.
    – closetnoc
    Commented Nov 28, 2014 at 16:58

If the site is designed for humans and you want them to click a link to "read more" then label it "read more". Mixing up the text for the sake of a search engine is neither good for your users, nor your SEO.

You don't see print advertisements that target real people that have 15 different variations of "call us now" because it sends mixed messages. Needlessly varying the text of a clear call to action does exactly the same.

  • I see what you're saying @nemmy. But to take it a bit further, is it necessary? The image already shows the product (let's say it's a Coke logo), and when you hover the pointer changes to a hand (indicating link), why then have another nav bar rolling out on top of the image with a "View More" text? It looks to me now that it's two, three times the work for the same link. Commented Nov 28, 2014 at 7:55
  • If your visitors are on mobile devices they don't see pointer changes. If you remove what clearly are links then you'll force them to poke around on your site trying to figure out what is a link. Even on a desktop, make a link (even is if it an image) CLEARLY a link for best usability (change a border color around it, or something at least. I don't want to wave my mouse around waiting for a teeny cursor to change trying to work out what's clickable or not.
    – nemmy
    Commented Nov 28, 2014 at 22:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.