Internal Linking — Probably Underrated

martinbrook

martinbrook

Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2026
Messages
16
Reaction score
10
I've spent a lot more time on internal linking recently.

Not because I think internal links are some magic ranking trick, but because they help distribute relevance and make large sites easier to understand.

One thing I'm testing is reducing the number of links on each page and making the relationships between pages more intentional.

Instead of:

Article A links to 30 random articles.

I'm trying:

Pillar page → supporting page → related subtopic → commercial page.

The structure becomes much easier to understand.

I've also noticed that orphan pages are surprisingly common, even on fairly established websites.

Curious what everyone else prefers:

large numbers of internal links across the site, or fewer links with a much tighter topical structure?

Would be interested in examples from large sites rather than small 20-page projects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dvc
Advertise on BHW
martinbrook said:
I've spent a lot more time on internal linking recently.

Not because I think internal links are some magic ranking trick, but because they help distribute relevance and make large sites easier to understand.

One thing I'm testing is reducing the number of links on each page and making the relationships between pages more intentional.

Instead of:

Article A links to 30 random articles.

I'm trying:

Pillar page → supporting page → related subtopic → commercial page.

The structure becomes much easier to understand.

I've also noticed that orphan pages are surprisingly common, even on fairly established websites.

Curious what everyone else prefers:

large numbers of internal links across the site, or fewer links with a much tighter topical structure?

Would be interested in examples from large sites rather than small 20-page projects.
Click to expand...
Maintaining a tight structure is unquestionably the right approach, particularly when working with programmatic SEO builds or extensive keyword clusters. Distributing dozens of random links per page merely dilutes link equity.
 
Can you provide an example of where you saw great results from doing this so we can see what it looks like when done correctly?
 
I prefer fewer but more relevant internal links. On larger sites, I've seen topical clusters work better than linking to everything possible. It makes the structure cleaner and helps both users and search engines understand page relationships more easily.
 
A clear pillar → supporting page structure makes more sense than linking to everything, and it also helps avoid orphan pages.
 
martinbrook said:
've spent a lot more time on internal linking recently.

Not because I think internal links are some magic ranking trick, but because they help distribute relevance and make large sites easier to understand.

One thing I'm testing is reducing the number of links on each page and making the relationships between pages more intentional.

Instead of:

Article A links to 30 random articles.

I'm trying:

Pillar page → supporting page → related subtopic → commercial page.

The structure becomes much easier to understand.

I've also noticed that orphan pages are surprisingly common, even on fairly established websites.

Curious what everyone else prefers:

large numbers of internal links across the site, or fewer links with a much tighter topical structure?

Would be interested in examples from large sites rather than small 20-page projects.
Click to expand...
I prefer fewer more international links. One large site a clean hub to cluster structure much more sent then to every page to link them
 
not underrated at all, and probably the single most profitable small tweak you can have on your site.
 
a clear main page with supporting pages makes the site easier to organize and helps keep important pages from becoming orphaned.it makes the internal linking more natural.
 
martinbrook said:
I've spent a lot more time on internal linking recently.

Not because I think internal links are some magic ranking trick, but because they help distribute relevance and make large sites easier to understand.

One thing I'm testing is reducing the number of links on each page and making the relationships between pages more intentional.

Instead of:

Article A links to 30 random articles.

I'm trying:

Pillar page → supporting page → related subtopic → commercial page.

The structure becomes much easier to understand.

I've also noticed that orphan pages are surprisingly common, even on fairly established websites.

Curious what everyone else prefers:

large numbers of internal links across the site, or fewer links with a much tighter topical structure?

Would be interested in examples from large sites rather than small 20-page projects.
Click to expand...
I usually prefer fewer links that actually make sense for the page. Keeping related pages connected in a simple way also makes it easier to spot orphan pages.
 
Probably one of the biggest factors there is within good onsite SEO and onsite SEO I feel is just as (if not more) important than links.. links without solid onsite is just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks..

Interlinking done right has many benefits, neglecting it is foolish.
 
I think the “fewer links = better” part gets oversimplified a bit. There isn’t really some ideal number of internal links you need to stay under, especially on a big site
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top