I just stumbled over a nice quote in a different thread and it really brought back a long-held suspicion I'd love to discuss. What if Google didn't differentiate between internal and external links. Here is the quote that made me think about it (again). You know the routine. First, do on-page SEO, then buy the backlinks. There's probably a million guides out there, free or not, telling you the same. If you dig a bit deeper, you will discover discussions about LSIs and tiered posting. Stuff a lot of LSIs into one big pillar article and then write an article about each of these LSIs interlinking to your big post. Does it work? Hard to proof, I only know that I have been ranking posts with this method I should ( believing all the standard crap about DA, PA, TF etc) not be able to rank. It certainly would explain why the big sites are able to rank new kws so consistently But here's one crazy suggestion? What if google didn't differentiate between internal and external links (anymore). What if they treated each and every link the same...as a sign of trust and context. Now you might shout that an external backlink is vital in the way bots work...or is that used to work? Ever since the advent of sending xml-sitemaps through google search console..is that still a viable assumption? Wouldn't it make google's indexing so much easier, if they treated it the same? And what exactly would be the disadvantage? A way to exploit it would be writing a LOOOOT about the topic and interlinking it. But that's hardly something negative. Usually, this falls under the buzzword 'context relevancy'. To me, it always sounded a bit like chasing ghosts. There is one caveat: pagerank would be, by design, ignoring any internal links. But how much has happened since December 2007? And i got no clue how, in this system, pagerank would be defined, as I certainly wouldn't say each link is alike. Only an internal link of similar strenght is equal to an external link. So what do you think?