I have long been an advocate for not using Click Here text, and I hate it with a passion; however, I've found it makes a difference. It definitely cuts down on my support email requests. Links are blue, bold and underlined, very easy to see, yet before adding Click Here, the support emails drive me bonkers.
I don't have any "scientific proof", but for some odd reason it seems to work for my audience. Granted, the support requests were/are probably coming from less web-savvy, older crowd. I should attempt to do a study with my newsletters to see if Click Here generates more click throughs than just a "proper" link.
Happy New Year!!
I refuse to use "click here" because it's a barrier to accessibility (many screen readers read the links on a page separately) and fails WCAG validation.
On top of that, using "click here" means that any links you have within your site aren't being indexed with key phrases by Google, Bing, etc. That alone is reason enough for me to avoid them.
In the absence of A/B testing with your users, you may want to maintain links as key phrases and action phrases and make it a point to add "(click here)" as part of the link text for each link.
In addition to WCAG and SEO benefits, you can also end up training your novice users what a hyperlink looks like, potentially allowing you to dump the "click here" text altogether in the future.
I use it rarely and never on it's own .. as an action to do something, like click here to submit your recipe, or click here to view the list of participants, click here to submit your blog. That sort of thing.
It should be unnecessary, but if it helps cut down on the support emails and produces results, I'll use it small doses.
What's the point of complaining about duplicate content such as the UX Booth post, when your post is also a duplication of content already said. It doesn't matter whether these concepts were shared 10 years ago or not, there may be a younger generation (like myself) that care about UX now, but didn't when we were 10. We don't dig around old and outdated blogs for content, we follow newer, more relevant articles. If your criticism isn't constructive, refrain from sharing it.
I can see you don't follow your own advice about offering criticism. That's a good thing. Once you stop sharing your feedback you end up as a mindless drone parroting what others say as if it is truth.
The UX Booth post implies, by its very title, that the issues cited are new or unique to 2010. That's just not true. As a PhD student who already writes for journals, I expect him to qualify it better or at least back up his points by showing that they are pervasive and ongoing.
This way, for any reader unwilling to actually educate his or herself by proper research into best practices and the history behind them, the author can provide his readers with greater context and, as a bonus, greater weight to any arguments.
In that regard, if you are following what you think are newer, more relevant articles then his article is a good example of how taking it at face value robs you of a good deal of UX history and ammo to defend those points with clients.