Do you really need to optimize internal link anchors, or is it a waste of time?

Why does Google advise against the over-optimization of internal anchors?

The statement by John Mueller aligns with a principle of naturalness that Google has advocated for years. When two pages on the same site cover a closely related topic — for example, a product page for e-commerce and a detailed buying guide — many SEOs strive to create unique and ultra-descriptive anchors for each internal link.

The idea behind this practice? To signal to Google the difference between the two pages via the anchor. However, Google has other much more powerful signals to understand content: textual content, entities, semantic context, HTML structure. The anchor is just one signal among others, and over-optimizing it can even create an artificial effect that the algorithm detects.

What does it really mean to 'use the same natural anchor'?

Let's take the provided example: you have a product page 'Farm Cheese' and a guide 'Everything You Need to Know About Cheese'. Instead of creating two anchors like 'buy farm cheese online' and 'complete guide to artisanal cheese', Mueller suggests simply using 'cheese' in both cases is acceptable.

This doesn't mean that all your anchors should be identical across the site — context matters. But when the topic is obvious and the pages are strong and well-differentiated in their content, forcing anchor variation becomes counterproductive. Google already understands what each page is about — no need to hammer it home in the anchor.

Does this approach apply to all cases of internal linking?

No. Mueller's nuance is crucial: he speaks about two strong pages on the same topic. If one of the pages is weak, lacks detail, or if you have a cluster of 10 pages on very closely related topics, the logic changes.

In a semantic cluster with a pillar page and several satellite pages, varying the anchors remains relevant to guide the internal PageRank flow and clarify the thematic hierarchy. Mueller's recommendation mainly concerns cases where two pages coexist without a strict hierarchy, each having its own legitimacy.

• Internal anchors are just one signal among others — Google analyzes the complete content to understand the topic.
• Over-optimizing anchors with long keywords can create a detectable artificial effect for the algorithm.
• This recommendation particularly applies to two strong and well-differentiated pages on the same topic.
• In a semantic cluster with a clear hierarchy, varying anchors remains justified to guide crawl and PageRank.
• Naturalness takes priority: an anchor should serve the user before serving the engine.

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Yes and no. On sites with an established authority and solid internal linking, it's indeed observed that anchor variation is not critical. Google easily differentiates the pages, even if several similar anchors point to them.

On the other hand, on more modest sites or in highly competitive sectors, differentiation by anchor can still provide a marginal gain — especially to help Google choose the right page to rank when multiple URLs compete on the same query. Mueller may oversimplify a bit. [To be verified] on niche sites or those in a growth phase, where every signal counts.

What risks are there in over-optimizing internal anchors?

The main risk is to create a detectable pattern that suggests manipulation. If all your anchors are variations of exact keywords without natural context, you're sending a 'forced SEO' signal that Google might devalue.

Furthermore, over-optimizing anchors often results in disjointed content for the user. A link like 'buy organic Savoie farm cheese online' in the middle of a sentence disrupts the reading flow. As Google increasingly values user experience, such practices become counterproductive in the medium term.

In what cases does this recommendation not apply?

Three cases where varying anchors remains strategic: hierarchical thematic clusters (pillar page + satellites), sites with evident cannibalization between pages (where Google hesitates to choose the right URL), and sites in a growth phase of authority where every micro-optimized signal can make a difference.

In these situations, a descriptive anchor helps Google make a decision or better distribute PageRank. But beware: even there, naturalness remains the rule — an anchor must always make sense within its textual context. A forced link will always be less effective than a well-integrated organic link.

What should you practically do with your internal link anchors?

First step: audit your competing pages. Identify cases where multiple pages on the site target the same lexical field. If these pages are truly distinct in their intent (purchase vs. information, for example), then simple, natural anchors are sufficient.

Second step: prioritize editorial fluidity. The anchor should fit naturally into the sentence. If you have to force the syntax to fit in a keyword, it’s a sign that the anchor isn't natural. Ask yourself: would a writer unfamiliar with SEO write this anchor this way?

What mistakes should you avoid in internal linking?

Avoid generic anchors repeated endlessly (‘click here’, ‘learn more’). Even if Mueller states that you can use the same anchor, it must still be descriptive of the target content. An anchor devoid of meaning helps neither the user nor the engine.

Also, avoid artificially varying the anchors out of fear of repetition. If 'cheese' is the natural term, use it. Don't create 'fermented dairy product' just to sound different — you lose clarity and relevance. Variety should come from the surrounding semantic context, not from the anchor itself.

How can you check if your linking strategy is effective?

Use Google Search Console to track cannibalization signals: if the same query alternates between several URLs in the results, that's a clue that Google hesitates. In that case, reviewing the internal anchors pointing to these pages can help clarify your intent.

Next, analyze the internal PageRank flow using tools like Screaming Frog or OnCrawl. If strategic pages receive few internal links or links with weak anchors, that's an optimization lever. But again, the quantity and quality of links matter more than anchor variation.

• Audit thematically competing pages to identify cases where simple anchors suffice
• Prioritize editorial fluidity: an anchor should fit naturally into the sentence
• Avoid generic anchors without descriptive value (‘click here’, ‘learn more’)
• Do not force anchor variation out of fear of repetition — naturalness is key
• Use Search Console to detect cannibalization signals between similar pages
• Analyze the internal PageRank flow to identify under-linked pages