Useful but needs better filters Rated 2 out of 5 stars

This is a nice utility and thank to the developer who has donated it. But I have to agree with those who remarked how difficult it was to find out how to use it. I expected a button somewhere after I had installed the utility and had to search the web to find a page that explained that the link was in the bottom right of the screen. Not very intuitive. Couldn't you just add a sentence to the installation description in the FF add-ons list?

I think it would be helpful if you got the name or title of the link as well as the URL. If you want to use the link in one of your own pages you have to go through the chore of clicking on each link to get the name from the target page which you could just as easily do from the original page. I am therefore not quite sure of the benefit of extracting solely the urls.

My main reason for installing this utility was to be able to extract links from a Google search page. What I want to do is take a list of keywords that I have embedded in the index page of the site I am developing, feed each one into Google (or some other search engine) in turn and then grab the links from the first page that comes up. This gives you the top-ranking links for that keyword. I can then view these pages, do keyword analyses on each of them and that way get a good picture of the competition. It is very arduous doing all this manually and I thought that this utility might help. However, you get a lot of junk links mixed up with useful ones. One way round this would be to have an option that excludes all query links (ie, containing a question mark). Alternatively you might include a negative filter option, ie, exclude all links that contain this string.

There is an on-line utility that works this way, http://www.webmaster-a.com/link-extractor-internal.php, but like Links Gopher it does not provide the title of the link which limits it usefulness.

It could be that somewhere out there on the web there is a utility that does just what I want. There usually is. But I just haven't found it yet.