Last Friday, I did a Whiteboard Friday called "Smarter Internal Linking." If you have not yet watched it (I do show some graphs and stuff, so you'll probably need to watch and not just listen), I'd recommend doing so first before reading the rest of this post.
The goal of this post is to clear up a few misconceptions that I saw in the comments, and to show you exactly what I mean about sitewides that could be problematic both now and in the near future for over-optimization algorithms and filters.
Footer Links Are Not (Inherently) Bad
One question I saw a few times was about if we should use sitewide footers at all. My answer to this is "absolutely!" Footer links can be awesome for the user experience. Especially in the growing world of mobile surfing of the Internet, there is an increasing need for good navigation at the bottom of websites that allows users to navigate to a place on the site that makes sense, without necessitating scrolling back to the top of the page.
Footer links like SEOmoz's are fine, as they point people to the most important and useful pages on the website. People expect to see them there:
Zappos does this as well, though interestingly they do not have the same footer on the homepage as they do on their category pages (take a look at the homepage and this category to see the difference). They are not overloading you with anchor text and taking you to irrelevant pages from every page, though. Their main footer is large, yes, but contains useful links for the user.
And according to SearchMetrics, their SERP coverage is up and to the right -
The Problem is Scale
Footers like these become an issue when they are scaled out across a full website and also into microsites. This is a common practice for large sites, especially in the travel/hotels/tourism industries.
If this is a normal webpage -
This is an example of a homepage from a major hotels chain -
The architecture looks like this, which is a completely standard architecture -
But if you scale this out to a sitewide section, such as in the hotels site above, then every page becomes like a homepage linking with optimized anchor text. And often these links are irrelevant and don't add value to the user.
Here is an example of interlinking gone crazy -
Microsites/Franchises Can Be Dangerous
I recently came across a site that also has many third-party franchise sites. Each of these sites is built off a template (which is not necessarily an issue) and provides local content specific to the area where the franchise is located. Each of the sites, in my opinion, adds value to the user.
Here is an example layout of those sites, with the problem area (in my opinion) highlighted -
When you take this out to scale, the linking between the sites (and all of the links shown in the microsite example are sitewide) begins to look thus:
Think Taxonomy
The best way to steer clear of these over-linking issues that could and probably will get you into trouble, is to categorize your pages. Inside Distilled, we often talk about these categories as "page types", but basically we're talking about the different levels of the pages on your site. Some examples are:
- Homepage (a category in and of itself);
- Category pages;
- Product pages;
- Product detail pages;
- PPC landing pages;
- Blog posts.
One thought as to how to improve your internal linking, but in an algorithm-update-friendly way, is to interlink between the different levels in ways that make sense. The ultimate best answer would be to create an internal linking schema or algorithm that allows you to link to these pages automatically depending on how you best decide the pages fit.
You'll end up now with linking that looks thus, with all of the pages pointing in being pages in the same geographical category:
Parallel Internal Linking
As I said in the video, it doesn't make sense to link to all of your important category pages from every other category page, as this is bad from a user perspective. If someone is looking for a Washington DC hotel, they're not interested in seeing London hotels probably. If someone is looking for London hotels, they are probably not interested in Orlando hotels, but they might be interested in Paris or Munich hotels.
Now we need to figure out how to segment. To categorize this specific site, I'd use the following taxonomy:
- Continent;
- Country;
- City;
- State (if US and applicable);
- Category or hotel
Then, pattern match the continents, then countries, then cities. If we do this, then your London hotels page could like this way, with links in the sidebar to Paris, Munich, Amsterdam, etc and not links to Orlando and Atlanta -
ccTLD Internal Linking
A tip that I gave in the video is to link between your relevant pages on your ccTLDs (.co.uk, .fr, etc) to the relevant page on the other TLDs. Using this methodology, we end up with the following structure and linking patterns instead of the craziness seen above:
How Do I Test This?
As with any blog post you read, you should take the advice with a grain or two of salt. I don't care who writes it, you need to do your own testing and competitor research to find out what is working and then how you can stay competitive while also not putting your website in danger.
Do Your Competitor Research
I found the principles talked about here by doing a deep dive into how competitors are getting their rankings (this is one factor of many). I found how they are linking and compared that against their traffic to see how it is trending.
You need to do the same. I recommend starting off with your most competitive term and reverse-engineering their strategies, looking specifically at external links, internal links, and content. You might find that you are being beaten because they have superior useful content. Or maybe you'll find that their internal linking is better, and you can learn from their strategies.
Work With Your UX Team or Developer
Now, depending on the size of your company, you might have a dedicated UX team. If you're working on the scale that I am talking about here, you need to have a UX team, even. Get them to help you categorize your pages and levels, and then work with them to create mockups using a tool like Balsamiq (the tool I used for the illustrations here).
Start off NoFollowing Links instead of Removing
Some people in the comments on the Whiteboard Friday recommended starting to test this by nofollowing your excessive internal linking instead of removing links. I think this is a good place to start, on a small sample of your pages, so that you can test the potential gains or losses experienced through these strategies.
Ultimately though, if these strategies work for you, then you will want to create new page layouts so that your categorization can help you effectively interlink. Slapping a no-follow on these links is only a band-aid, as we are also concerned about conversions and not just rankings.
I hope this helps to clarify some of the points I was making in the video. If you have more questions (and I hope you do now), please leave them in the comments!
I recommend not adding nofollow to your own internal links, ever. I've experienced some undesirable consequences (dramatic shift in SERPs) in the past due to that. Either remove them or keep them as is.
As per y personal test I will agree with Jon that adding too many no follow to your internal links will create problem and will act negatively for you! But I would love to hear others opinion on this one!
Yes having nofolow to internal links is not good practice.
Interesting insights, Jon. Can you shed any more light onto why you say this? Perhaps a case study? I'm totally happy to be wrong, but would like to see an example around it.
My worry, that I was trying to mitigate, was that a lot of people are getting this very wrong, and I don't want people to go changing a bunch of stuff without testing it to see that it works within their own vertical.
Matt Cutts has categorically mentioned in this video NOT to add nofollow to internal links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVOOB_Q0MZY
Yes indeed! You can only add no follow attribute if you are referring to other websites link..
This is true! Only add no follow to links pointing to other peoples site. NEVER EVER DO IT TO YOURS!
yes you are right
I can't provide any examples, because the real life examples are from past clients when we used to do services. All I will say is that it had a dramatic affect on their SERPs. Also, I'm not suggesting you're wrong, I was just providing a warning that I've had a bad experience with that practice in the past. Very interesting article. Enjoyed the read :)
Cool, thanks Jon! Wasn't trying to challenge you either. If I gave bad info, I wanted to correct it!
working on a case study, will share my results...
Who is wrong, Manny? Me? I'd love for you to leave a constructive comment and tell me why/how :-)
I agree with Jon. The goal of internal linking from a technical SEO perspective should be to spread link equity across the domain and push DA higher. If you re-read this post by Matt Cutts...
https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/
...you will see that link equity spread is determined by the number of links on a page, not whether they are nofollowed or not. So therefore if I have 4 links on a page and I nofollow 1 of them, then the remaining three still passes 25% of the link juice. BUT if I delete that one instead, then the remaining links pass 33.33% of the link juice.
The number of total links on a page determines link equity per link, whether they are nofollowed or not.
Excatly Joe - this goes back to the very antiquated 'PageRank Sculpting' where webmasters used to add nofollows to less important links to try and force link juice through the followed links on the page. This no longer works. Consolidation of these less important pages into one page and then linking to that page is a better way to go nowadays.
Given the recent confusing and conflicting statements coming from Google about link notices and how to respond to them post Penguin, I certainly would not be relying on statements made in 2009 and early 2011 from Mr. Cutts as to managing internal or external links.
If Google is truly interested in confronting PR manipulation and enhancing the user experience in a post Penguin environment, "nofollowing" navigation friendly links can be the only appropriate response.
In any case, with the lack of a major Penguin refresh after so long and the mishmash of statements about unnatural link notices and how to respond to them, I doubt Googlers themselves could tell us a best practice right now.
At the end of the day, If I have to choose between SEO and user friendly navigation, I am going with navigation. A confusing user experience is going hurt conversion regardless of how much traffic I have.
Jeff, do you have any data to support not believing the article now?
No..and that's my complaint about Google. At this point, what we need is a long overdue Penguin refresh so we can have some takeaway data to chew on.
All we have now are unnatural links notices that don't specify what the problem is and, after which we are told to ignore on one hand and on the other hand pay heed to. (By the way, I'm still waiting for my unnatural link notices. lol)
The only real life experience I know of is what I refer to as the "WPMU service call" - the Penguin refresh at the end of May, WPMU had success with altering their footer links built into their themes. But these were external links and involved changing anchor text as well (if I am recalling correctly).
In the absence of real data, I am just trying to stick to the basics outlined at the onset of Penguin and subsequent to anything Mr. Cutts may have already said: To paraphrase: "Keep the user experience foremost and don't try to manipulate PR".
To me that's user friendly internal navigation links that are designated "nofollow".
P.S. Anybody got a "Amen" for a Penguin refresh?
I was obviously penalised on one of my sites by penguin, but never receieved the notice in Webmaster Tewlz. I am having fun trying to find the rogue urls to blame, lol.
No traffic, no conversion. You need a user for the experience!
I would agree, nofollowing seems like a very bad idea. It's just like saying "I don't trust this link on my own websites".
I agree that having the nofollow on internal links is not good!!!
Joe, absolutely agree here! NF links are just useless while internal crosslinking... (remember "Google's rule of 1st url")
As far as I can tell, there hasn't been an update from Google on Matt's advice to not use a rel="nofollow" value to try to sculpt PageRank on a site in any shape or form, regardless any updates from Google regarding links, link analysis, and unnatural linking.
While the original use of the attribute value was to indicate no trust in a link pointed to an external URL to avoid passing along any ranking value, Google did expand its use to indicate in an automated manner that the URL used in a link was a paid link. While some people cleverly tried to use nofollow to "sculpt" PageRank to pages that they considered valueless on their own sites, Matt Cutts has indicated some shortfalls in this approach, such as the loss of the PageRank that would have gone to those links rather than the consolidation of that PageRank to other links on the page.
Personally, I've always worked to avoid the use of a nofollow value in a link because I'm loathe to tell Google that any of my pages aren't to be trusted. That might be taking the semantics of the value too seriously, but there are better approaches to defining a site architecture.
Google did update their help page on the nofollow value last in March of 2012 here:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569
It does note that a rel="nofollow" in a link can be used for Crawl Prioritization, but suggests that there are many more optimal ways to achieve that results;
Crawl prioritization: Search engine robots can't sign in or register as a member on your forum, so there's no reason to invite Googlebot to follow "register here" or "sign in" links. Using nofollow on these links enables Googlebot to crawl other pages you'd prefer to see in Google's index. However, a solid information architecture — intuitive navigation, user- and search-engine-friendly URLs, and so on — is likely to be a far more productive use of resources than focusing on crawl prioritization via nofollowed links.
The statement from that page also fails to mention the point that Matt has made in the past about the loss of the PageRank that evaporates rather than being rerouted through the other links on a page. Crawl prioritization is not ranking, and the lack of that statement about the impact on ranking doesn't mean that Google has changed what Matt has stated in the past.
Google has also noted in other places, like within their patent on the Reasonable Surfer, that there are a number of features associated with links that might determine how much PageRank they might pass along with a link. An example from the patent's description is that they wouldn't pass along as much PageRank to a page that uses the anchor text, "terms of service."
Rather than using rel="nofollow" to handle excessive internal linking, I would recommend taking a close look at the structure of the site and the information architecture, and restructure how pages are linked together in a manner that benefts the users of the site.
Hey dohertyjf,
Thanks for your insights. It makes complete sense to me to optimize it for the user, more than we do it for the SE's.
Additionally, I was wondering what you would advise a company in the service industry targeting nearby locations/cities in the same state. List all the geo targeted pages in the footer ? Categorize them in some manner ?
A little outside the topic, I have another query for you. We hear about a lot of our clients claiming that people search with a zip code. You think it makes sense to add a zip code in the Title tag ? Does Google automatically map the zip with the name of the city ?
Let me know you thoughts,
Cheers..!!
Krinal
Categorize, link to them from a main state category page, have individual pages with enough unique content on them to rank. That would be my strategy. I wouldn't link to VA cities from the WA page, but I might from close WV city pages.
Putting the zip code in the title may help in ranking for that zip code, but I don't know that this would be the best page for it. Could be, but it would depend on your situation IMO.
The ZIP on the page may help with local intent and rankings, though.
Ha, I love your use of SEO Ipsum here!
Folks, if you'd like to use this in your own work, you can find it at: https://seoipsum.com/ -- and note that it comes in White Hat and Black Hat flavors! :)
Ha, nice tip on the SEO Ipsum app. Just found out about hipster ipsum too. Brilliant :)
https://hipsteripsum.me/
Hi,
It is very interesting to read about the interlinking structure, interlink is one of the strong part of the white hat SEO. If we have strong interlinking structure then it is good for the user experience and site navigation. You have shared really great post about the inter linking.
Interesting point of view. That image with a ton of arrows pointing to and from different pages really helps one understand what a bunch of crap we do on our websites when we link too much, especially to irrelevant pages.
One of our client's traffic dropped >50% after Penguin (although previously it saw a huge benefit from Panda). Now seeing what you outline in this article, I think we do have a problem with a plugin that lists the "similar / related" articles after every blog post. Every blog post linking to 5 or more other posts may be too much, right? We might disable the plugin and see what happens, although I doubt this alone can be the cure. But sometimes, less is more, and it might be true for internal linking too.
Excellent share. Thanks!
A great example of a well linked site is Wikipedia. Wiki pages get a lot of top ranking for factual or information search queries in Google because of the way the information is naturally interlinked in Wikipedia. For example, there are a number of related articles at the end of the each wiki article which means people are more likely to read further than the original article which improves the bounce rate of that article. This metric is important in the eyes of Google now that we are in post-panda/penguin era.
Excellent article on internal linking strategies. Using no follow attribute to their own links is a bad idea.
Thanks for explaining this. I have to admit this is a bit easier to follow than your last article.
As much I didn't like your previous internal linking whiteboard i like your explanation of it here! Thank you a lot and appreciated!
Jungles
Any reason why you didn't like the Whiteboard Friday?
The same reason why I don't like a confusing footers now P;)
Best,
J
Interesting and many excellent points raised. Thanks for the great post!
Hi dohertyjf, Your inputs are very valuable, recently my blog is also affected by these Google updates and I m trying to figure out the solution.
Thank you for all this! I am just learning and realize how bad interlinking we have done. Is there any way I can see such infograf of internal linking how google see it on my site? It's really killing me that our site offers the best product when it comes to luxury holiday beach villas in Kenya and yet there are such bad websites ahead of us...
If you're trying to rank a local business for several cities, can you put the cities in the footer? Would you link each of them to it's own internal page with specific city info on it, or just text, no link?
I notice that many e-commence sites use product tags pages which imply a lot of internal links. Does this way makes sense? What is the danger? I think it looks like spam.
Silly question, but one that's bugging me: What tool do you use for your wireframes? I like!
Hey themuna, I use Balsamiq for wireframes.
What about for 2014?
Hi John! You got a very interesting post here. I believe that the best way to spurn these over-linking issues that could get us into trouble is to categorize our pages. I think that's the only best way. Categorizing our pages is a must.
Thanks, just the info I was looking for.
Hi dohertyjf,
Although I could not understand all the points you mentioned in your blog as they were technical, but still whatever I could understand that helped me a lot to know how the internal linking on a website should be.
Thanks for the nice post.
Good post, when content is created dynamically it can help keep this clean one the architecture is already set up.
Not sure if it's too late to ask a question or comment here. But, along with the above question about "nofollow" in the footer (to pages on my site that I just don't care to pass juice too), I would like to ask if you think sitewide sidebar links to relevant pages on a blog are detrimental to a site's structure. I mean, how many millions of blogs have sitewide sidebar links pointing to their main pages, social accounts, rss feeds, and other important information? No way Google penalizes this even if keywords are used?
Thanks!
It's a good question, and you're right, though I don't know how effective sitewide anchors on blogs are for internal linking purposes.
Footers, I think, have been targeted (Google can after all differentiate between sections of the page) because they have been manipulated so much in the past with exact anchor text.
Remember also that I'm talking about big sites. Most small sites will be fine as long as they don't go crazy.
I LOVE, LOVE ,LOVE this post! Our site has a similar structure in which it needs some love. So, you've inspired me to dig a bit deeper again into re-focusing on our site structure.
Hi dohertyjf
Excellent article. I have a small doubt, consider a website with 100 pages and if we have given internal linking from 99 pages with relevant anchor text to one page, is it good practice or is it comes under spamming.
Thanks in advance
Great post! The fact that I'm commenting is a great indicator since I never post comments.
I always get into arguments about internal navigation and site hierarchy with other agencies my clients works with. This is a great piece of reference material.
Hi dohertyjf,
Thank you for this awesome article. But I have one question that it don't have answer: Do add rel="nofollow" to internal links (i.e in the footer) is bad idea?
Good post, it is essential to ensure that website visitors can clearly navigate around the website, but at the same time not making the link structure so complex that the website linking actually becomes a negative for user experience.
Regarding nofollow on internal links, could it be an issue to add them when I *have* to link between Silos? I'm asking that because another good source on SEO (Bruce Clay) says:
Rel="NoFollow"
When you link between different Silos within the site, you may always link normally to a landing page. When linking between Silos and the target page is not a landing page we want to have ranked, in that case we would use a nofollow link attribute. Add the rel="nofollow" attribute to eliminate passing PR when linking two subjects outside of silos. This will allow unrelated pages to link to each other without confusing the subject relevance. A rel="nofollow" removes the PR relationship between two or more pages.
Thanks for your help!
What about branded sitewide footer links. Similar to the ones on www.webhostingtalk.com? ou can see we link out to all of our sites in the footer, on all sites and on all pages. Could this have possibly tripped some sort of Penguin filter? We have been seeing declining traffic on many of these sites since the update and we are doing nothing else wrong.
Anyone care to commen? It would be appreciated.
Footer links are fine, as long as they point to internal sources (identical domain). In case there are not, negative side-effects should be expected (even when only the domain extension is different). The same happened to one of my clients. If you have the opportunity, try to avoid it. I'm not sure on how subdomain are affected by this.
We used to see some huge boosts from this tactic, especially from large messageboards networks with different free subdomains. But nowadays, I wouldn't dare to do this any longer.
Hey John great post, easy to understand. A question though:
Do you think that the new rel="alternate" hreflang="x" is part of the internal linking strategies.
My presumption is that using these new tags on dedicated pages or within xml sitemaps could help Google to understand internal link structure and the relationship across domains.
Let me know if you have ever use these tags for the purpose of internal linking across domains.
Thanks for sharing a nice information on Internal Linking structure.
Excellent follow-up post!
"As with any blog post you read, you should take the advice with a grain or two of salt. I don't care who writes it, you need to do your own testing" The most important part of your post Tom, and it is an important post.
PS I can't believe how much your graphic ability has changed in such a short time.
Hotel chains (even big ones) used to do this when there was belief that internal anchor texts had some value. I am seeing more and more of them removing these type of footer links. However, proposed structure could be (columns)
- Destinations
- Activities
- About & Legal
- etc
Here's one example of our clients' website that in my sense does it fairly good both in terms of internal linking and UX - https://kroatien-holiday.de/
Cheers
What If some category pages have 3 links to the same page from the home page for whatever reason?
Is it better to reduce the number of links to 1?
or add No-Follow to 2 of the links?
or do nothing?
thoughts?
I'd look at why you are doing it, and also how. From a link equity perspective, you're getting the same amount of link equity, but it's spread over different links, so the number of links to that page increases, but not from an increasing number of domains.
Nofollow could be a solution, but after seeing the comments above I am not sold on it.
So it'd be better to do category-wide instead of site-wide for siloing?
Anyone have a WP solution for this? I found this https://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/enhanced-header-footer-injections but haven't tried it yet.
"Enhanced Header / Footer Injections - Add code to the header and footer sections of your site on a page-per-page basis."
Looks like you'd have to add the footer to every single page, post, etc. It'd be better if it allowed per category.
Functionality: yes
Efficiency: no
That's exactly what I was thinking. That could work for the footer, and for the sidebar you could use a plugin and strategy like the one I wrote about over on Triberr.
long article but very helpfull
Interesting discussion.Adding nofollow might not be the best solution, instead optimizing anchor text of footer link is a better option from both user experience and search engine perspective.Lets say you are going to place footer links with keyword +location then this might be a risk in post penguin world.To avoid this its better to use only location name under proper categories and it doesn't look unnatural.
Example:
https://www.paintballgames.co.uk/
They have used their footer links quite smartly with only location names.
Cruzsheila, are you repeating the google guide ? or Matt ? I think content is king, but still dont know why my content is not, especially in older sites. Great strategy, but still not for me and my finances.
One thing that I didn't see from your examples was a link from the home page to the micro site. This may or may not fit into your topic because the links aren't within the same domain, but they are within the same company. For example the Hilton hotel corporate site. If I am looking for a Hilton hotel in Illinois, I type in Illinois or a zip code, and several hotels come up, all followed links. Then the micro site links back to home site. In your example you just had the micro sites pointing back to the main site. So do you see an issue with the main site serving as a directory, only through this search option or page, and having all of the micro sites pointing to the home page? Can't be too careful with Google's animals running around!
Good post John. Do you know of any tools to visualise a websites current internal link structure automatically?
Good stuff regarding internal linking...thanks
This is very nice article, which more helps me to know about the overall strategies of internal linking. I need some more information for how to build the internal linking in the content or body text...
I have one doubt, may help this internal links to increase the SERP for website?
Thank you so much for sharing this info. I was fearing that the footer links on my site may harm but now I realized that it is a misconception.
Dohertyjf explains his strategy more specifically. This is what I believe as a good site structure and good internal linking system
Simply wow internal linking strategies :) really proud of you.
I guess the post wort reading for all those people who are in the arena of web-designing and Search Engine optimization. I guess just as we optimize our contents for website same is the case with the structure of the website. The architecture and design of the website should be user friendly and in conformity with the Search engine guidelines.
Please, understand that a no-follow attribute to internal links devalues the overall site’s performance from SEO perspectives. Also, a no-follow rel attribute to internal links are not required at all especially if you have options. The concept of a no-follow links came to avoid ‘link spam’ in blog comment. Its a blessing or curse that depends on how and where to use it. Analogous to this, Einstein never created atomic bomb to destroy humanity but we used it to win a WAR. A good invent is misused by us. So, my opinion would be to use on external links if you think so. Otherwise, a strict no-no on applying to internal links.
Please, read what Matt says - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVOOB_Q0MZY