Official statement
Other statements from this video 38 ▾
- 21:28 Do sitemaps really trigger a quick recrawl of your modified pages?
- 21:28 Can you really force Google to recrawl immediately after a price change?
- 40:33 Does font size really influence Google rankings?
- 40:33 Does CSS font size really impact your positions on Google?
- 70:28 Is it true that content concealed behind a Read More button is actually indexed by Google?
- 70:28 Is it true that content hidden behind a 'Read More' button is actually indexed by Google?
- 98:45 Is Internal Linking Really More Crucial Than a Sitemap for Prioritizing Your Pages?
- 111:39 Why Doesn't the Search Console API Show Referring URLs for 404 Errors?
- 144:15 Why does Google keep crawling 404 URLs that are years old?
- 182:01 Should you really be worried about having 30% of URLs as 404s on your site?
- 182:01 Can a high 404 rate really hurt your SEO rankings?
- 217:15 How can you effectively target multiple countries with a single domain without losing your local SEO?
- 217:15 Can you really target different countries on the same domain without using subdomains?
- 227:52 Should you really use hreflang when targeting multiple countries with the same language?
- 227:52 Should you really combine hreflang and geographical targeting in Search Console?
- 276:47 Why do your structured data breadcrumbs not show up in the SERPs?
- 285:28 Why do your rich results vanish from the standard SERPs while still appearing in site searches?
- 293:25 Do Invisible Breadcrumbs Really Block Your Rich Results on Google?
- 325:12 Should you really be optimizing JavaScript hydration for Googlebot in SSR?
- 347:05 Is it true that word count doesn't matter for ranking on Google?
- 347:05 Is the number of words really a ranking factor for Google?
- 400:17 Does the traffic volume of your site affect your Core Web Vitals score?
- 415:20 Does traffic volume really influence your Core Web Vitals?
- 420:26 Does content relevance truly outweigh Core Web Vitals in Google rankings?
- 422:01 Can Core Web Vitals Really Boost Your Ranking Without Relevant Content?
- 510:42 Is it true that Google can't always show the right local version of your site?
- 529:29 Is it really necessary to duplicate all country codes in hreflang for targeting multiple regions?
- 531:48 Why does hreflang in Latin America require each country code individually?
- 574:05 Does PageSpeed Insights really measure your site's performance?
- 598:16 Is it really possible to shift from long-tail to short-tail without changing strategy?
- 616:26 Can you really hide dates from Google search results?
- 635:21 Should you stop updating publication dates to boost your SEO?
- 649:38 Does Google really rewrite your titles to help you out?
- 650:37 Can you really stop Google from rewriting your title tags?
- 688:58 Should you really report SERP bugs with generic queries to expect a response from Google?
- 870:33 Should new e-commerce sites prove their legitimacy outside of Google first?
- 937:08 Is it true that the length of the title really impacts Google rankings?
- 940:42 Is it true that the length of title tags really impacts Google's rankings?
Google claims that internal linking takes precedence over the sitemap for communicating the relative importance of pages. URLs linked from the homepage inherit a higher priority signal than pages buried 5-6 clicks deep. In practical terms, this means that a well-structured XML sitemap does not compensate for an architecture where your strategic pages are pushed to the bottom of the hierarchy.
What you need to understand
Does Google really differentiate between sitemaps and internal links when assessing priority? <\/h3>
Yes, and this is a point that Mueller regularly emphasizes<\/strong>. The XML sitemap is a discovery tool—it tells Googlebot which URLs exist—but it carries no importance signal<\/strong>. The The internal linking<\/strong>, on the other hand, conveys PageRank and structures the informational architecture of the site. A page linked from the homepage receives more juice than a page buried in a subcategory accessible in 6 clicks. It’s a double signal: accessibility for the bot and editorial importance<\/strong>.<\/p> We're talking about click depth<\/strong>, not URL depth. A page accessible in 6 clicks from the homepage—even if its slug is short—is considered peripheral. Google interprets this distance as a signal: if you don’t find it useful to bring this page closer to the root, why should Google prioritize it in crawling or ranking?<\/strong><\/p> This is particularly critical for e-commerce sites with thousands of references or editorial sites with deep archives. A flagship product buried in a lengthy structure risks suffering sporadic crawling and poor positioning<\/strong>, even if its content is excellent.<\/p> The sitemap remains essential for signaling the existence of new URLs or poorly linked pages<\/strong>. It accelerates the discovery of fresh content, particularly after a migration or the launch of new sections.<\/p> But it never replaces a well-thought-out architecture. A sitemap that lists 50,000 URLs without a coherent internal hierarchy is like sending a directory without an index to Googlebot. It will find the pages, but won’t know where to start or which ones deserve daily crawling.<\/strong><\/p><priority><\/code> tag in the sitemap? Ignored for years.<\/p>What exactly do we mean by '5-6 levels deep'? <\/h3>
Does the sitemap retain any usefulness if internal linking does the job? <\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with field observations from SEO professionals? <\/h3>
Broadly, yes. Crawl audits consistently show that pages with low click depth receive more Googlebot visits and index faster<\/strong>. Tests of moving strategic pages to higher levels in the structure often result in a crawl boost within 48-72 hours.<\/p> But it needs nuance: internal linking does not create authority ex nihilo<\/strong>. If your site has weak external linking and a limited crawl budget, optimizing internal linking will help distribute this budget better—not increase it. [To be verified]<\/strong> The precise impact on ranking remains difficult to isolate, as Google does not publish a numerical correlation between click depth and average position.<\/p> On large news sites or marketplaces<\/strong>, the logic is different. Google understands that an article published yesterday is relevant even if it’s 4 clicks from the homepage. The timestamp, freshness, and flow signals (RSS, news sitemap) partially compensate for depth.<\/p> Similarly, for sites with strong domain authority<\/strong>: a site like Amazon can afford to have products 7-8 clicks deep; Googlebot will still crawl it daily thanks to its immense crawl budget. For a generic site with a DA of 30, it’s another story—every click counts double<\/strong>.<\/p> The catch-all link in the footer<\/strong> to 50 "strategic" pages: Google detects this pattern and dilutes its impact. A contextual link in editorial content carries more weight than a generic link repeated across 10,000 pages.<\/p> Another drawback: creating artificial shortcuts through overloaded menus<\/strong>. If your mega-menu lists 80 links, Google will crawl these pages—but the UX will be catastrophic, bounce rates will skyrocket, and behavioral signals will plummet rankings. The architecture must serve the user first, Google second.<\/strong><\/p>In what cases does this rule not fully apply? <\/h3>
What pitfalls await those who over-optimize linking without considering editorial coherence? <\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What should be prioritized when auditing to align your internal linking with this logic? <\/h3>
Start by mapping the click depth of your strategic pages<\/strong>. A crawl with Screaming Frog or OnCrawl gives you this metric in a few minutes. Any commercial or editorial page prioritized that is located beyond 3 clicks should be brought closer.<\/p> Next, analyze the distribution of internal PageRank<\/strong>: which pages receive the most internal links? If your contact page or legal mentions are in the top 10, you have a structural problem. Redirect this juice to pages that convert or rank.<\/p> Do not create artificial "hubs"<\/strong> just to shorten depth. An intermediate page without added value (like "Our products > Category X > View all products") lengthens the user journey and dilutes the signal. Prioritize direct links from relevant content.<\/strong><\/p> Avoid also linking everything from the homepage<\/strong>: 200 links in the menu kill hierarchy. Google will not be able to distinguish your priorities. Be selective: 5-10 strategic links in main navigation, the rest through semantic clusters or contextual blocks.<\/strong><\/p> Check coverage and crawl reports in Search Console<\/strong>. If strategic pages are marked as "Discovered, currently not indexed" or crawled every 15 days, it’s a red flag: Google does not see them as a priority.<\/p> Also compare the indexing rate by level of depth<\/strong>. If your pages at 1-2 clicks are indexed at 95% and those at 5 clicks at 30%, you have your ground proof. Adjust accordingly.<\/p>What mistakes should be avoided during the linking overhaul? <\/h3>
How can you verify that Google correctly interprets your architecture? <\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Le sitemap XML est-il encore utile si mon maillage interne est optimal ?
Combien de clics maximum entre la homepage et une page stratégique ?
Un lien en footer compte-t-il autant qu'un lien contextuel dans le contenu ?
Faut-il supprimer les pages profondes qui reçoivent peu de trafic ?
Comment mesurer concrètement l'impact d'une refonte du maillage interne ?
🎥 From the same video 38
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · duration 985h14 · published on 26/02/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →Related statements
Get real-time analysis of the latest Google SEO declarations
Be the first to know every time a new official Google statement drops — with full expert analysis.
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.