Click here for more information. 
Click here to win $1,000,000 dollars. 
Click here for a punch in the nose.

"OK, so each link leads you to the same thing.  Why?"  Teachin you a lesson, that's why.

Notice how the top-ranking result for "click here" is Adobe's PDF Reader download page? That's because somewhere in the ballpark of half-a-buhzillion websites link to that exact page with the exact words "click here" in (or as) the link text.  When done intentionally this is called "Google  bombing" and it's pretty old news . . . but it's when it's done as a mistake that interests me.

"What's the problem?  I like clicking here."

Yeah but where is, "here?"  As we all know, links are not like light switches that turn the Interweb forward or backward a step (that's called Stumble Upon); the whole reason that links have different colors and underlines is to give something a citation as well as transport the viewer to that source.  When Google sees you linking to your Photo Gallery as "click here" it initially thinks it's a page about "click here."  And if you don't have an informative Title tag on that next page, it might not ever figure it out.  Just because your page is full of pictures of blue, furry widgets, doesn't mean Google automagically knows it's about "the widget industry's photo gallery of blue, furry widgets."  Google's pretty much blind as a bat when it comes to JPEGs. 

"OK, Officer Obnoxitron, how do I find and fix all the times I used 'click here?'"

I was recently doing some Search Engine Optimization on a website and found that if you Google up "site:www.yoursite.com 'click here'" you can find all the pages in your site where you have used the words "click here" when you really should have used something more descriptive.  The particular site I was examining came up with 107 instances of the dread words.

... You can probably try this same thing with "next," "back," "read more," and "download" or whatever other vague phrases you fancy.

Switcheroo

Also, consider the reverse: If you're linking to a page about the "glyptodon" with a full paragraph of text about its eating habits, you run the risk of missing the point that the page is about the glyptodon and not each and every other word in that paragraph. 

"But 'click here' had such a good ring to it."

I know, it's hard to replace "click here" after all these years.  I try to use the next page's title or the best name for the file if you're downloading something.  You can even keep "click here" if you just move the anchor tag over to the informative words.

"Click here for more information," becomes, "Click here for more information about fruit bat soup."

See, isn't that more fun?

Precisely, who knew that Opera 9.1 does a better job rendering CSS than current builds of Firefox and the newly released Internet Explorer 7 (nope, not linking there)?  Well, maybe you did but I'll wager most users had no idea and didn't even know they should care. 

As Dan wrote previously, most webmasters are probably beginning to see Firefox gain on IE in their stats.  In my opinion, that's great; IE is a mess, it's had a free ride for far too long and it's a real mule to design for . . . but is Firefox really the answer?  Some jokers say NO, vehemently, Opera 9 has been getting some press for some pretty worthy feats.

Security
Opera has fixed all its known security holes while IE and Firefox still have 50%+, presently.  Wha?  And IE had you thinking that stuff was just for lamenting!

When I first read this I was pretty shocked to learn that Firefox was as behind as they are.  Sure, it's only one data set and who knows how many undetected holes the little-used Opera browser has but, still, the fact that somebody actually went and fixed 100% something that was broken . . . swoon! 

CSS
Have you heard of this Acid2 Test?  No it's not chemistry-related and it doesn't have anything to do with hippies but it might alter your perspective.  In brief, the Acid2 Test is a do-over of an earlier test using an HTML and CSS design to measure browsers' adherence to W3C HTML and CSS 2.0 standards; OK, one more time, it's this creepy smiley face that looks obliterated unless you're using a righteous browser.

I like this Acid2 test blog with pictures the best.

Conclusion
So, should you use Opera now?  Well, no, I don't think so.  Personally, I just don't like Opera. I think it's over-polished to the point it distracts from the content it browses (weird looking) and it flickers and I could never leave the tools with which Firefox blesses me every day.  And, most importantly, our stats show that barely anyone else out there uses Opera.  Right underneath MSNbot, Safari, Netscape (yikes), and something called Lanshanbot, Opera pulls in just 10 out of 8,534 sessions for a given set.  Until Opera starts pulling up next to the competition, we have to keep designing for the broken toys.   Sounds harsh but, rather than congratulate Opera, I'm just going to hope that the competition gets up to speed.