Recovering from February 2023 Products Review Update

[thisishatred]

@Ryuzaki I got an internal linking question that I can't seem to find a consistent answer around. I read the threads again but I can't find an answer to this. If I missed it somewhere - feel free to point me in the right direction.

Let's say you have a sports website trying to rank for NFL players and NBA players related keywords. I am trying to find relevant keywords in existing posts to create interlinks. Anyway, my question is:

Let's say you have an article about NFLs best player of the year & NBAs best player of the year.

If I check all posts under the NBA category and find keywords like best player of the year or player of the year. Does it make sense to create a link from those keywords to the NBAs best player of the year post? Even though the keyword doesn't contain the word NBA and knowing there is another post that is around NFLs best player of the year?

I am asking because I would probably have to do the same for the NFL category and I am not sure if Google is smart enough to know the difference lol (since the keywords I am linking to might lack the category keyword in them).

I am thinking, its best if the keyword I am linking from, has the category keyword in it. Like NBA best player of the year (and not just best player of the year). I would appreciate a second opinion.

I'm obviously not Ryu but what you're talking about sounds like a "silo" style question.

I'm big on visuals so I had to mind map what you wrote down, or what I *ass*umed you were trying to express:

So something to keep in mind here is that "players" are established Entities and I'd wager to say Google does know what "category" to sort them under.

Think for a minute:
How many people do you know that went from the NFL to the NBA and vice-versa? I'd wager to say that list is pretty small, even infinitesimal.

Google knows teams > players > and subsequently the sport.

Miami Heat > Jimmy Butler > Basketball (NBA)

I'd wager to say that's also true for even something like E-sports.

They know: Organization > team > player > I bet they even know their respective hardware they're using.

Is the above what you're trying to express?

 

[wikibum]

Is the above what you're trying to express?

Yes. You pretty much nailed it with the diagram.

So something to keep in mind here is that "players" are established Entities and I'd wager to say Google does know what "category" to sort them under.

I agree with this statement. I am just assuming that based on the semantic nature of the article. For example, the NBA one. They would be able to logically link/attribute that we are linking to the NBA player of the year, without us stating the word NBA in the anchor.

How many people do you know that went from the NFL to the NBA and vice-versa? I'd wager to say that list is pretty small, even infinitesimal.

That's true, but I am not thinking about it from the perspective of the user. The user knows that if they are on a NBA page and a link from "player of the year" is going to take them to the NBA player of the year page. I am just not sure Google will make that distinction since there will be multiple anchors site wide using the same keyword linking to different pages.

Based on what you wrote. I am thinking of just playing it safe and adding the word "NBA" or "NFL" in the anchor text.

 

[thisishatred]

They would be able to logically link/attribute that we are linking to the NBA player of the year, without us stating the word NBA in the anchor.

So, I'm personally partial to not using exact match anchors in internals - if I do I use them sparingly; I think I mentioned that elsewhere on this forum but in my opinion, it's completely unnecessary. Admittedly, sometimes though it's necessary (edit: by this I mean within article without altering the content) to do so.

Here's a case-study on this topic from Cyrus Shephard on internal links:

https://zyppy.com/seo/internal-links/seo-study/

The TL;DR

1. More internal links are associated with higher traffic, but only to a point.
2. Sitewide/navigation links seem to have a powerful effect, mostly on larger, high-authority sites. The effectiveness is less clear on small, lower-authority sites.
3. Anchor text variety is highly correlated with higher search traffic.
4. Naked URL anchors don’t seem to hurt and, in fact, are associated with more traffic.
5. At least some exact match anchors are associated with significantly higher traffic.

Interview, timestamped with key findings:

Timestamp with "anchor text tips":

More or less the same sort of advice though.

----

From what you're describing I'm willing to guarantee they're semantically different - to the point where hammering an exact match anchor internally is wholly unnecessary.

Opinions are like assholes though - the above is just mine.

 

[Ryuzaki]

@wikibum, I agree with both of the sentiments you guys have shared:

• Google will understand the topical relevancy of an NBA player article linking to an NBA player article even if you don't include NBA in the anchor.
• You might as well simply add NBA in the anchor to help disambiguate. We are still dealing with robots, no matter how good.

I always "help" Google understand, and more often than not will try to shove it down their throats. Why be subtle about it, you know.

 

[wikibum]

Thank you both @thisishatred @Ryuzaki for your input.

So, I'm personally partial to not using exact match anchors in internals - if I do I use them sparingly;

I am going to start doing that. Gotta a long journey ahead updating an existing site with 500+ page with different anchor text and making sure it all makes sense.

We are still dealing with robots

Before I posted my question. I thought about this same exact thing. Might as well help the robots understand rather than "assuming" they will figure it out. Better safe than sorry I guess.