What question was posed to John Mueller?

On Reddit, a webmaster explained that he had two links pointing to the same page on his homepage: a visible 'Services' button at the top, and a text link in a FAQ section lower down, with a potentially more effective anchor for SEO. The problem: he feared that Google would only consider the first link encountered in the source code, to the detriment of the second, better-optimized link.

To circumvent this hypothetical 'first link priority', he was considering removing the HTML link status from the top button: keeping it clickable via JavaScript but no longer having an tag in the DOM. The goal was to make the FAQ link the only valid HTML link to that page, hoping that Google would consider its anchor.

Why is this manipulation technically questionable?

Transforming an link into a clickable button solely via JavaScript poses several structural problems. First, it breaks accessibility: screen readers and keyboard users lose a native navigation point. Next, it creates a semantic inconsistency: an element that looks like a link and acts like a link should indeed be a link in the code.

Lastly, this approach is based on an assumption never confirmed by Google: the myth of 'first link counts', stating that only the first link to a URL in the source code would be considered for anchor text and PageRank transfer. Google has never validated this rule, and field tests yield contradictory results based on context.

What alternative does John Mueller suggest?

Mueller suggests a cleaner approach if one truly wishes to test the order of links: use CSS or JavaScript to visually reorganize the elements while altering their position in the DOM. Specifically, this means placing the FAQ link before the 'Services' button in the HTML code, then using layout techniques (flexbox, grid, absolute positioning) to display the button at the top of the page.

This method keeps both valid links, maintains accessibility and user experience, and allows testing whether the source code order impacts the anchor recognized by Google. It is a much more technically defensible approach, even though Mueller specifies that he does not expect any visible change in results.

• Google handles millions of sites with varied link structures, so it manages cases of multiple links to the same URL.
• The concept of 'first link priority' has never been officially confirmed by Google.
• If testing is to be done, favor DOM rearrangement + CSS/JS over eliminating HTML links.
• Maintaining clean links guarantees optimal accessibility and crawlability.
• The SEO impact of such manipulation will likely be imperceptible according to Mueller.

Does this statement confirm or refute the myth of 'first link counts'?

Mueller's response is deliberately evasive on this point. He does not explicitly say that 'first link priority' is a myth, but neither does he validate it. By recommending testing through DOM rearrangement if someone is really concerned, he leaves open the door to a potential effect of link order, while clarifying that he does not expect anything visible. [To check]

In practice, observations are contradictory. Some tests show that Google may indeed favor the first link encountered in the source code for anchor text, but other cases reveal that Google aggregates or weighs multiple link anchors. The reality is likely more nuanced: Google may adapt its behavior based on context, site topology, or the semantic consistency of anchors.

Why does Mueller downplay the potential impact?

Two possible reasons. The first: Google indeed has powerful algorithms that handle cases of multiple links without order being a determining factor. In this scenario, the webmaster's concern is truly disproportionate, and Mueller politely reframes it.

The second, more cynical reason: Google does not want to encourage such micro-optimizations that push webmasters to over-engineer their code for hypothetical gains. By minimizing the impact, Mueller discourages complex technical manipulations that could degrade user experience or accessibility for a marginal or non-existent SEO benefit.

In what cases does this issue truly deserve attention?

Let's be honest: for 99% of sites, this question is a non-issue. If you have two links to the same page with different anchors, Google will manage it. The energy invested in this type of optimization would be better spent creating quality content or fixing more impactful structural issues.

However, there are edge cases where it may make sense. On a large e-commerce site, with thousands of category pages and complex menus, optimizing internal anchors can play a role in distributing internal PageRank and clarifying the semantic signals sent to Google. In this context, a thoughtful internal linking strategy, including the order and formulation of anchors, can be part of a comprehensive optimization.

What should you do if you have multiple links to the same page on a given page?

In most cases: do nothing. Google handles this scenario daily across millions of sites. If your anchors are coherent and descriptive, there is no reason to worry. Focus on optimizations that have a greater impact: loading time, content quality, overall internal linking structure.

If you really want to optimize, start with an audit of your internal anchors. Identify strategic pages, check which anchor texts point to them from your high internal PageRank pages, and ensure these anchors are descriptive and varied. This is much more impactful than playing with the order of links in the DOM.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Never transform an HTML link into a clickable button solely via JavaScript for SEO reasons. It is a technical regression that breaks accessibility, complicates maintenance, and is based on an unverified assumption. If an element is clickable and leads to another page, it must be an in the code.

Also, avoid over-optimizing internal anchors to the point of sacrificing user readability. An anchor like 'discover our natural SEO services in Paris for SMEs' is illegible and screams manipulation. Favor natural and useful formulations: 'our SEO services' or 'natural SEO for SMEs' are more than sufficient.

How can you test the impact of link order if you really care?

If you manage a large site and want to test this variable, follow the approach suggested by Mueller: reorganize the DOM with CSS/JS, without breaking HTML links. Place the link with the strategic anchor first in the source code, then use flexbox or grid to display elements in the desired visual order.

Test on a limited sample of pages (10-20% of a category, for example), track positioning changes over 2-3 months, and compare with a control group. Also measure the impact on Core Web Vitals and actual click-through rates: if your manipulation degrades UX, the SEO effect will be canceled out by the drop in engagement.

• Audit your internal anchors on strategic pages and correct inconsistencies.
• Never sacrifice a valid HTML link for a hypothetical SEO gain.
• If testing link order, use CSS/JS to reorganize the DOM, not to break links.
• Measure accessibility and Core Web Vitals impact before any deployment.
• Prioritize high-impact optimizations (content, structure, speed) over micro-link adjustments.
• Document your tests with control groups and sufficient observation periods (minimum 2-3 months).