Should you really optimize for exact anchors in internal linking?

What does this statement really mean for internal linking?

Mueller dismisses a common SEO practice: stuffing every internal link with optimized anchors containing the exact target keyword. The logic behind this approach was simple: if it works in link building, why not internally?

Google states that its algorithm already understands navigation structure without needing to be forced. A menu with "Our Services" or "Contact" is enough to map the site. There is no need to turn every link into "SEO agency Paris 15th" for Google to grasp the topic.

Why is this clarification coming now?

Because the practices of over-optimizing internal linking have become commonplace. Some sites go as far as creating artificial anchors that disrupt the user experience. Google probably wants to curb this trend.

The statement remains vague on one point: what is meant by "normal navigation"? Is a breadcrumb trail involved? Are contextual links in an article? Thematic clusters? [To be verified] because Mueller does not distinguish between different types of internal links.

Does this mean anchors are no longer important?

No. Mueller says that exact anchors are not necessary, not that they are useless. There is a nuance. Google can understand that a link labeled "learn more" points to an SEO expertise page if the context is clear.

However, in dense content with several dozen links, a descriptive anchor is likely still helpful. Mueller provides no thresholds, examples, or metrics. We remain declarative.

• Structural navigation: Google understands it without optimized anchors (menu, footer, sidebar)
• Contextual links: descriptive anchors probably retain semantic value
• Over-optimization: clearly discouraged, but no defined red line
• User experience: becomes the top criterion for choosing an anchor

Is this position consistent with real-world observations?

Partially. A/B tests on internal linking still demonstrate a measurable impact of descriptive anchors on positioning, especially for long-tail queries. Saying it is "unnecessary" would be overly simplistic.

What is true: over-optimization penalizes. A site that forces 15 links labeled "car insurance Paris" on every page is shooting itself in the foot. Google has always said this for link building, and it logically applies internally.

Where does Google remain vague in this statement?

On everything that really matters. What is the difference between normal navigation and strategic linking? Is a well-designed semantic cocoon considered normal navigation or optimization?

Mueller gives no concrete examples. No "here is what works" vs. "here is what is unnecessary." We remain in the realm of generic advice that leaves each SEO to interpret as they wish. [To be verified] with real cases before overhauling everything.

In what cases does the exact anchor remain relevant?

When context alone is not enough. If you publish a 5,000-word guide with 40 internal links to various resources, an anchor "image optimization" is clearer than a vague "click here".

E-commerce sites with thousands of product sheets still benefit from descriptive anchors in filters and facets. The same goes for news sites where the volume of content makes contextual navigation complex.

What needs to change in your internal linking strategy?

Stop forcing keyword-stuffed anchors everywhere. If your link seems written for a robot rather than a human, it's dead. Favor natural formulations that genuinely inform the visitor about the destination.

For the main navigation (menu, footer), keep it simple. "Services", "Blog", "Contact" are sufficient. No need for "Natural SEO services in Paris." Google picks up on that perfectly.

How to audit your current linking in light of this information?

Export all your internal links via Screaming Frog or Sitebulb. Identify identical repeated anchors across 10+ pages. This is likely unnecessary over-optimization.

Also check for generic anchors like "click here" or "learn more." If they represent 50% of your linking, you're leaving value on the table. The balance lies between natural and descriptive.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid now?

Don’t fall into the other extreme: banning all optimized anchors out of fear of a penalty. Google says it is not necessary, not that it is dangerous. There’s a difference.

Avoid overhauling your entire linking at once based on a vague statement. Test first on a section of the site, measure the effects over 2-3 months, then deploy if relevant.

• Audit identical repeated anchors across multiple pages
• Replace keyword-stuffed anchors with natural formulations
• Maintain descriptive anchors for important contextual links
• Test changes on a sample before full deployment
• Monitor the impact on the rankings of modified pages
• Document changes to analyze results