I will often use something like “click on the link ‘anchor text’” to read more on such and such. I feel this allow me to maximize my keywords for the anchor text.

So if design is good, following accessibility recommendations, the display and behaviour of links should clearly signify what is clickable and what is not – these aspects convey what the text ‘click here’ is explicitly and unnecessarily describing. Contrary to popular belief, humans are not actually that stupid, whilst content should (generally) be pitched for a comprehension level of an 8 year old, interaction is a different kettle of fish. I see two year olds picking up devices and quickly learning what they can interact with by following these design cues.

So by using these design cues to indicate call-to-action, we are now free to use the meaning of the link text to convey additional helpful information SPECIFIC to the destination page, i.e. putting the ensuing interaction in context. I’m a great fan, and so is Google, of using the page title of the destination page as the link text (Is that a coincidence?) Users like consistency, it reduces the cognitive load and it makes them feel comfortable when they land on a page with content that the link that they have just clicked described. A page title, and it’s referring link, should as accurately as possible describe the contents of the page.

A final point – this generic link naming approach is probably not WCAG compliant, and would be breaking disability discrimination law in more than a few countries because of the way screen readers work. At best it would be introducing usability issues for this user base. You’d have the RNIB all over you if you tried to do it on a website of any significance in the UK..