Should you really worry if your archives are accessible only after 10 clicks?

What exactly does Mueller say about crawl depth?

Mueller addresses a recurring concern here: is it serious if old content is buried deep in the hierarchy, accessible only after 5, 7, or 10 clicks from the homepage? His answer is clear — no, it’s not a disaster. Why? Because Google doesn’t crawl a site like a user who methodically clicks from the homepage.

The engine has multiple signals to identify important pages: crawl history, backlinks, real popularity, traffic, engagement signals. If a page has already been crawled and indexed, Google doesn’t need to retrace the entire path from the root to find it. It goes back directly at regular intervals, especially if it continues to generate traffic or links.

How does this statement break a stubborn SEO myth?

For years, the dogma of 3 clicks maximum has been dominant. The idea: any important page should be accessible in three clicks or less from the homepage; otherwise, it risks not being crawled or being considered secondary. Mueller harshly nuances this belief.

What actually matters is the recrawl frequency of strategic pages, not their distance from the root. A news page from last year, even buried in archives, will be recrawled if Google still deems it relevant — due to external backlinks, recurring traffic, or simply its quality history. Conversely, a page accessible in 2 clicks but lacking interest or authority signals may very well be ignored.

What are the limits of this logic?

Be cautious, Mueller is talking here about old news. These are contents that have had their moment of glory, that have already been crawled, indexed, and perhaps even ranked. The engine knows them. It knows they exist. Depth then becomes secondary.

However, this logic does not necessarily apply to new pages or content that has never been discovered. If you add a new product on an e-commerce site and it's only accessible after 8 clicks from the homepage, without internal or external backlinks, Google will struggle to find it. The crawl budget plays a crucial role here — and burying new content deep down remains a bad idea.

• Important pages are recrawled regularly, irrespective of their depth in the hierarchy.
• The distance from the homepage is not a crawl criterion if Google already knows the page through other signals (backlinks, history, traffic).
• This logic mainly concerns old content already indexed, not new pages unknown to the engine.
• The crawl budget remains a factor for large sites — burying fresh content remains risky.
• Authority signals take precedence over structural proximity to the homepage.

Is this statement consistent with what we observe on the ground?

Yes and no. On news sites or mature blogs, we indeed see that Google recrawls old articles even if they are deep in the archives — as long as they continue to receive organic traffic, backlinks, or are linked from active pages. The engine does not rely solely on the hierarchy.

On the other hand, on e-commerce sites with thousands of products, burying a product sheet deep in a level 5 category without internal linking or backlinks is a surefire way to make it invisible. [To be verified]: Mueller does not specify whether this logic applies uniformly to all types of sites or specifically to editorial sites. Ground observations suggest that the crawl budget weighs more heavily on transactional sites.

What nuances should we add to this statement?

First point — Mueller says, “important pages are often recrawled.” He does not say “all pages.” There is a selection. Google does not crawl everything all the time. It prioritizes based on criteria that it does not detail: popularity, content freshness, engagement signals, domain authority. If an old page generates no positive signals, it can very well be forgotten, even if it is technically accessible.

Second nuance — just because a page is recrawled doesn’t mean it ranks well. Mueller speaks here of crawling and accessibility, not ranking. A page can be perfectly indexed but invisible in the SERPs if it lacks authority, backlinks, or topical relevance. Confusing accessibility with visibility is a classic mistake.

In what situations does this rule not apply?

This logic falls apart if you launch a new site or add unprecedented content. Google cannot recrawl what it doesn’t know. If a page has never been discovered, it must first be found — either via an XML sitemap, well-placed internal links, or external backlinks.

Another edge case: sites with very constrained crawl budgets. If Google has to choose between crawling 10,000 pages accessible in 2 clicks or 500 pages buried in 8 clicks, it will prioritize the former. On massive platforms (marketplaces, aggregators), depth becomes a factor in prioritization again. [To be verified]: no official data precisely quantifies the impact of depth on crawl budget, but log studies empirically confirm it.

What should you do concretely if you manage an editorial site?

If you have a blog or news site, don’t obsessively try to artificially elevate all your archives in the main menu. It’s neither necessary nor efficient. Instead, focus on smart internal linking: link your old articles from recent and popular content, create pillar pages that bridge to your thematic archives.

Check your server logs to see which old pages are still being crawled regularly. If some haven’t been crawled at all in 6 months, it’s a clear signal that they have lost all significance in Google's eyes. You then have two options — either bring them back to the forefront through internal linking or deindex them if they no longer hold value.

What mistakes to avoid on an e-commerce site?

Don’t hide behind this statement from Mueller to justify a catastrophic structure. On a transactional site, every product sheet must be discoverable quickly — not just by Google but also by your users. If a product is accessible in 8 clicks, it’s probably a UX issue before being an SEO issue.

Another classic error: thinking that simply adding a URL to the XML sitemap will ensure it is crawled and indexed. The sitemap helps, certainly, but it does not replace a coherent internal link structure. Google follows links. An orphaned product, even in the sitemap, is unlikely to be taken seriously by the engine if it has no internal or external links.

How to check if your site is well-optimized for crawling?

Analyze your Apache or Nginx logs to find out which sections of the site are crawled the most. If Googlebot systematically ignores certain categories, it’s a clear signal that they lack authority or internal links. Compare the crawl frequency with the update frequency — a page updated weekly but crawled once a month presents a problem.

Use the Search Console to identify pages that are discovered but not explored, or explored but not indexed. These two indicators reveal either crawl budget issues or perceived quality concerns. If strategic pages linger in these limbos, it’s a priority.

• Analyze your server logs to identify pages that are regularly crawled — and those that are ignored.
• Check the recrawl frequency of strategic pages in the Search Console.
• Do not rely solely on the XML sitemap — build a solid internal linking structure.
• Identify orphaned pages (without an internal link) and correct course.
• Prioritize accessibility for new pages — depth still matters for unprecedented content.
• Segment your strategy according to the type of site: editorial vs transactional.