Do 'below the fold' links really carry less weight in SEO?

Why does this statement challenge an entrenched SEO belief?

For years, SEO has been dominated by the idea that immediately visible links (above the fold) hold more value than those requiring scrolling. This belief originated from a time when Google placed greater weight on elements displayed prominently, assuming that what is visible is important.

Mueller clarifies here that vertical position matters little. What counts is the context: a link in the main content retains its weight, even if it appears after three scrolls. Google can differentiate between an editorial link and a template link.

How does Google differentiate links based on their context?

Google analyzes recurring areas of the site: global navigation, footer, sidebar present on all pages. These areas contain links that are identical across hundreds or thousands of pages. Their value is thus diluted, as they do not provide unique information per page.

In contrast, a link in the body of an article, even if placed after several paragraphs, is considered contextual and editorial. It is specific to that page, so Google assigns it a weight equivalent to other links in the main content.

Does this rule apply uniformly to all types of sites?

The distinction between main content and recurring areas works well for blogs, media, and editorial sites. But for e-commerce sites or product pages, the situation is more blurry: where does main content start and end? Is a block of similar products recurring or unique?

Google likely uses HTML structure and layout signals (tags <main>, <article>, CSS classes) to identify main content. A link in a fixed sidebar will be treated differently than a link in a <article> paragraph, even if both are below the fold.

• Vertical position (above/below the fold) does not directly affect link weight
• Context is key: main content vs recurring areas (header, footer, sidebar)
• Links in template areas are devalued as they are non-unique
• Google uses HTML structural signals to identify main content
• This logic applies better to editorial sites than to complex architectures

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

Overall, yes. Field tests show that deeply buried links in a long article retain their authority transmitting capacity. A link placed in paragraph 15 of a 3000-word guide works just as well as a link in paragraph 2, as long as it is in the editorial flow.

However, [To verify] for pages with a lot of content (over 10,000 words), where Google may not assign the same weight to all links simply due to crawl or semantic analysis limits. The data is insufficient to assert a universal rule.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

Mueller speaks of link weight, but user behavior remains an indirect factor. A below the fold link statistically receives fewer clicks than an above the fold link. Fewer clicks mean less referral traffic, hence potentially fewer engagement signals on the landing page.

Furthermore, the concept of “main content” remains subjective. Google has never published a strict rule defining what is considered main content vs auxiliary. On some sites, entire blocks may be misinterpreted if the HTML structure is shaky or if the design misleads the algorithm.

In what cases might this rule not apply fully?

First case: poorly optimized mobile-first sites. If your main content is hidden behind an accordion or a poorly implemented tab, Google may not treat it as main content, even if it is conceptually. Mobile-first indexing complicates matters.

Second case: pages with lazy-loaded content that only loads far down the scroll. If Googlebot does not trigger the lazy-load, it will never see these links. Technically, they are below the fold, but more importantly, they are invisible to crawling.

What concrete steps should be taken on your pages?

First, stop sacrificing user experience to place all your important links at the top of the page. If a contextual link makes more sense in the middle of an article, put it there. Google will value it if the context is relevant.

Second, take care of your HTML structure. Use semantic tags (<main>, <article>, <aside>, <nav>) to help Google distinguish between main content and recurring areas. Clean code facilitates algorithmic interpretation.

What mistakes should be avoided in link implementation?

Classic mistake: placing strategic links in the sidebar thinking they will be treated as content. If this sidebar appears on every page, Google treats it as a template area, and your links lose value.

Another pitfall: headers overloaded with links. Even if these links are technically crawled, their weight is diluted. Better to have 5 strategic footer links than 50 links causing noise. Google knows no one reads a footer with 200 links.

How to audit your site for compliance?

Start with a crawl using Screaming Frog or Oncrawl with the option for detecting recurring areas enabled. Identify blocks that repeat identically on more than 30% of your pages. These are your template areas.

Then, use Google Search Console to check which internal links are actually followed and valued. Compare with your theoretical link structure. If important links from the main content do not appear in the detected internal links, it is a warning signal.

• Place contextual links where they make semantic sense, not necessarily at the top
• Use HTML5 semantic tags to clarify page structure
• Avoid overloading recurring areas (sidebar, footer) with strategic links
• Audit template areas to identify devalued repetitive blocks
• Check in Search Console that important internal links are being crawled properly
• Test lazy-load: ensure Googlebot loads deferred content correctly