Internal Linking Question / Silo Structure

I'm curious about the internal linking practices you follow or recommend. I know it's a common question, but it seems that many courses and experts are not aligned on this topic.

E.g:
Kyle Roof, in his course, emphasizes the simplicity of building a content silo. He suggests using a straightforward linking scheme: always include a link in the supporting content to the target page, link only between two articles without daisy chaining, and ensure that just one link from the target page goes into the silo. The structure looks something like this:
TP - Target Page - Mountain bike repair
SA1 - Supporting Article 1 - How to repair a mountain bike at home
SA2 - Supporting Article 2 - Common mountain bike problems and how to fix
SA3 - Supporting Article 3 - Best tools to fix your mountain bike

In this case,:
- "TP" would link only to "SA3."
- "SA3" would link back to "TP" and to "SA2."
- "SA2" would link to "TP," back to "SA3," and to "SA1."
- "SA1" would link to "TP" and back to "SA2," and then it stops here.

While Matt Diggity teaches the Reverse Silo, which focuses on linking in both directions from the target page, the process involves the following:
- "TP" links to "SA1," "SA2," and "SA3."
- Meanwhile, "SA1," "SA2," and "SA3" link back to "TP" but not to each other.

Some suggest that it is acceptable to include 5-10 relevant links for every 2,000 words. It's also permissible to link between different silos, provided the link is meaningful.

What's your approach on this?

nickklas said:

In this case,:
- "TP" would link only to "SA3."
- "SA3" would link back to "TP" and to "SA2."
- "SA2" would link to "TP," back to "SA3," and to "SA1."
- "SA1" would link to "TP" and back to "SA2," and then it stops here.

Click to expand...

I don't like this structure. I'm not saying that it doesn't work, I'm only saying that I don't like it and I wouldn't do it like this

Personally, I'd interlink all of these 4 pages with each other...

nickklas said:

While Matt Diggity teaches the Reverse Silo, which focuses on linking in both directions from the target page, the process involves the following:
- "TP" links to "SA1," "SA2," and "SA3."
- Meanwhile, "SA1," "SA2," and "SA3" link back to "TP" but not to each other.

Click to expand...

well, this sucks too! Why the F**K would you bother with such schemas, just interlink everything together since they're all in the same silo anyway, so they're very relevant to each other.

nickklas said:

Some suggest that it is acceptable to include 5-10 relevant links for every 2,000 words

Click to expand...

I think 1 internal link (IF it makes sense for that link to exist) for every 400-500 words is fine, at least that's how I'd do it. So yeah, 5 links for 2000 words seems reasonable to me. And I wouldn't mind having more than 5 links IF it makes sense. Of course, what makes sense differs from one scenario to another, so that's where common sense and experience come into play, so use those to your advantage

nickklas said:

It's also permissible to link between different silos, provided the link is meaningful.

Click to expand...

yes, I am one of those who shouts this loud and clear, and that's because I did see sites doing this without suffering any penalties. But then again, those sites used to have good authority, and we all know how google have different rules for different sites (ie. authority sites get away with more crookery than the little guys).

This being said, even if your site has 0 authority but you still think that interlinking between silos makes sense you should do it. And if it happens to be penalized because of this you can always remove the cross-silo links and your penalty should be lifted like magic within days (or when googlebot next crawls the previously interlinked pages, which you can obviously force if you need to speed things up)

nickklas said:

What's your approach on this?

Click to expand...

interlink the living crap out of ALL of the pages WITHIN their own silo, but only as long as it makes sense. Don't follow every idiot schema out there that "gurus" tell you to because those gurus have not analyzed all of the sites in all of the niches, and you never know when you find something that only works for your specific case.

Just write the content fluently and without thinking too much about how you'll interlink it with other pages and before publishing, read the content and see where it makes sense to link to other pages within the same silo (or to other silos if warranted), and then drop the link and don't bother with retarded schemas invented by retarded corporations that force people to think and behave like robots.

I follow the most relevant pages for internal linking. I dont follow blindly any structure for internal linking. I only internal link when content demands. Not only the anchor but intent is also an important factor in internal linking. Although It's my personal opinion. If you get success following any type of structure like a silo structure then go for it. Test it and share your findings with us.