Does the number of clicks really matter for the SEO of your strategic pages?

Why does Google talk about hierarchy instead of depth?

The confusion between click depth and actual page importance is persistent. Many SEOs still believe that a page accessible in 3 clicks or less from the homepage is automatically better positioned than a page accessed in 5 or 6 clicks. Mueller dismisses this simplification: what matters is the internal link structure that signals to Google that a page is important.

A deep page within the site structure can receive dozens of contextual links from strategic content, blog articles, and category pages. Conversely, a page 2 clicks away from the homepage but isolated, with no internal incoming links, will be perceived as secondary. Google reads the topology of the link graph, not just the distance to the root.

What does a clear hierarchy mean in practice?

A clear hierarchy is a consistent link architecture where each page receives a volume of links proportional to its strategic importance. Pillar pages, main categories, and commercial landing pages should concentrate most of the internal PageRank. Utility, legal, and secondary pages receive less.

Mueller implies that Google can recognize this logical distribution. If your site sends 200 links to a technical FAQ buried 7 clicks deep, Google will understand that this page is important — despite its depth. The reverse is also true: a page 1 click away but with zero internal links will be considered marginal.

Is the number of clicks completely irrelevant?

No. Saying that depth is "not problematic" does not mean it is neutral. A page too deep will be crawled less frequently, will receive less PageRank by default, and will statistically have fewer chances of being linked from other pages. This is a structural disadvantage.

Mueller's nuance is that this disadvantage can be compensated by intentional linking. But this requires active effort: identifying deep but strategic pages and then injecting links from content hubs, contextual menus, and semantic clusters. If you do nothing, depth remains a handicap.

• The link hierarchy takes precedence over the distance in clicks from the homepage
• A deep but well-linked page can outperform an isolated shallow page
• Internal PageRank is distributed via links, not via position in the structure
• A clear hierarchy means that the volume of incoming links reflects the business importance of the page
• Depth remains a default handicap if no linking effort is made

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Yes, but with limitations. Tests regularly show that a well-linked deep page (6-8 clicks) can indeed rank, especially if it also receives external backlinks. However, this reality mainly applies to authority sites with a good crawl budget. On a site with 500 pages and low overall PageRank, depth remains a blocking factor — Google simply won't reach the page 7 clicks deep.

Mueller speaks of an ideal case where the hierarchy is "clear". In practice, what proportion of sites truly have a clear hierarchy? Most have a chaotic linking structure, omnipresent footer links that dilute the signal, and cluttered menus that drown out information. In this context, depth becomes a useful proxy again: a page 2 clicks away statistically has a better chance of being well linked than one 8 clicks away.

What nuances should be added to this rule?

[To be verified] The notion of "clear hierarchy" remains vague. Google doesn’t provide any quantitative threshold: how many internal links does a page need to be considered important? 5? 10? 50? What is the relative weight of a link from the homepage, a link from a category, a link from a blog article? Mueller specifies nothing, which leaves a huge margin for interpretation.

Another point: this logic applies to content or transactional pages, but what about programmatic pages, facets, filters? On an e-commerce site with 100,000 URLs, click depth quickly becomes unmanageable. Claiming that "hierarchy takes precedence" does not solve the crawl budget issue: Google will not visit 100,000 pages to assess their internal hierarchy. Prioritization is necessary.

In what cases does this rule not apply?

On very deep sites (tens of thousands of pages), depth remains a critical indicator. Google cannot crawl everything, so it follows the shortest and most frequently linked paths. A page 12 clicks deep, even with 20 internal links, risks never being crawled if the site has a low overall PageRank and a tight crawl budget.

Similarly, on sites where internal linking is automated (product recommendations, "similar articles" widgets), the concept of intentional hierarchy becomes obsolete. Google sees thousands of algorithmically generated links without a strong editorial signal. In this case, depth becomes a more reliable sorting criterion than the raw link volume.

What should be done concretely to clarify the hierarchy of your site?

First, map your internal linking. Use a crawler (Screaming Frog, OnCrawl, Botify) to extract the link graph and identify strategic pages that receive too few internal links. A priority page (commercial landing page, content pillar, main category) should receive at least 10 to 20 internal links from varied contexts — not just the menu or footer.

Next, prioritize contextual linking. Links from editorial content (body text, blog articles, resource pages) carry a stronger semantic weight than automated links (breadcrumbs, pagination, widgets). Inject links from your articles to your strategic pages, anchoring on targeted keywords. This is the signal that Google reads as "hierarchy".

What mistakes to avoid in restructuring the linking?

Classic mistake: adding all important links to the main menu. Result: an overloaded menu, diluted signal, and Google that can't understand anything. It's better to focus the menu on 5-7 strategic links and compensate with links in the content. The footer with 50 links to all pages on the site is another plague: it dilutes PageRank and muddles the hierarchy.

Another trap: believing that an XML sitemap compensates for weak linking. The sitemap helps with crawling, but it does not transfer PageRank. A page listed in the sitemap but without any internal links will remain invisible to Google. The sitemap does not replace the link hierarchy.

How to check if the hierarchy is well perceived by Google?

Use Google Search Console to analyze the crawl frequency and indexation of deep pages. If a strategic page 6 clicks deep is only crawled once a month, this is a signal that it lacks internal links. Compare it with a page 2 clicks deep: if it is crawled daily despite having fewer links, then depth still plays a role.

Another indicator: the rate of discovered but unindexed pages. If Google discovers a page but does not index it, it’s often because it considers it unimportant — a symptom of a lack of internal links. Correct this by adding contextual links from already well-ranked pages.

• Crawl the site to map internal links and identify imbalances
• Ensure that each priority page receives at least 10-20 contextual internal links
• Remove or nofollow non-strategic footer/menu links to concentrate PageRank
• Inject links from blog articles and editorial content to commercial pages
• Monitor crawl and indexation of deep pages via Search Console
• Avoid overloaded menus and catch-all footers that dilute the signal