This is Post 3 in my SEO & Accessibility series — based on my SIU 2025 paper.
We’ve looked at link uniqueness and contrast ratio.
Now it’s time for a fan favorite: why vague links suck.
Setup
I introduced a feature called text_clarity (text_clarity) — a score between 0 and 1 that estimates how clear and specific a link’s text is.
It penalizes:
- Fuzzy words like “click here”, “read more”, “explore”
- Links that are too short, too long, or just plain empty
It rewards:
- Actionable, content-specific, readable links
The Formula (lightly nerdy)
My clarity score combined:
- A lexical scoring model (5–7 words = sweet spot)
- A fuzzy phrase filter (removes generic verbs)
- A proportional match between original and cleaned text
The goal: quantify “hmm, this link actually tells me something”
So… does it help SEO?
Yes. Absolutely. This one worked.
Google and Bing both ranked pages with higher text_clarity noticeably better.
Data Snapshot:
Feature: text_clarity
Average clarity (ranked): 0.59
Average clarity (not ranked): 0.48
Clarity wasn’t just correlated — it was statistically significant (p < .001) across all experiments.
Why does this work?
Because bots try to behave like users.
And users?
They want links that tell them what’s behind the curtain — before they click.
If your site is full of:
- “see more”
- “get started”
- “start now”
…you’re effectively hiding your own content from both people and machines.
What to do?
Make your links self-explanatory.
Example:
- ❌ “Learn More”
- ✅ “Learn More About WCAG 2.1 Link Guidelines”
📂 Resources
- Dataset: goker.dev/datasets/hyperlinks
- Code: goker.dev/codes/hyperlinks
TL;DR
Clarity works.
Bots see it. Users need it.
And yes — your SERP position notices.
That wraps the trilogy:
- Unique isn’t always better.
- Contrast doesn’t guarantee visibility.
- But clarity? Clarity pays off.
May your links be visible and understandable.
Top comments (2)
Great post, Goker!
Great post—really enjoyed your insights!