Excessive internal links. Should I remove the footer links?
-
Hi guys,
I have an ecommerce site selling eco-friendly items online. I ran some on-page optimisation reports from SEOMoz PRO and discovered that I have at least 120 internal links per page.
32 of these are in the footer, designed in part to aid user navigation but perhaps also to have a positive impact on SERPs and SEO in general for the ecommerce site.
Will removing these links be beneficial to my search engine rankings, as I will have less than 100 internal links per page?
Or is it a major change which may be dangerous for my site rankings?
Please help as I'm not sure about this! I've attached an image of the footer links below. I won't be removing the Facebook/Twitter links, just the 3 columns on the left.
Thank you,
Pravin
-
Hi Pravin, I wouldn't consider 120 to be overly excessive for an ecommerce site. However there's a danger that the footer links could be perceived as spammy (especially if the anchor text is keyword stuffed). I agree with Bryan - check to see if the links are getting clicks, and if they're not, streamline or cut them. Good luck!
-
Hi Pravin,
That is a good question many people have.
Like most things SEOMoz informs you about you should take it as a very important suggestion, but not necessarily the absolute rule.
Here is a direct quote from Matt Cutts
REF: MattCutts.com"But in some cases, it might make sense to have more than a hundred links. Does Google automatically consider a page spam if your page has over 100 links? No, not at all. The “100 links” recommendation is in the “Design and content” guidelines section, and it’s the Quality guidelines that contain the things that we consider webspam (stuff like hidden text, doorway pages, installing malware, etc.). Can pages with over 100 links be spammy? Sure, especially if those links are hidden or keyword-stuffed. But pages with lots of links are not automatically considered spammy by Google."
In my 8 years of building e-commerce website I would say more then 100 links is actually the norm. My personal rule of thumb for e-commerce sites is to keep it around 200 in special cases where have more links is user beneficial I will allow for it. Just remember if you make a kick butt home page and get a high pagerank for it 5+ then you put 200+ links on it, you have diluted the value of each link to almost nothing, so design accordingly.
-
Google has declared war against the practice of excessive internal linking - which is why SEOmoz warns you about these excessive links within its tools.
Is it going to get you de-indexed? Maybe not. But as Google comes down harder on these practices it could certainly affect your ranking.
Having links for navigation is recommended, but taking up 1/3 of the page with footer links is obviously not benefiting the end user.
-
It's debatable these internal links seem like they are here for the user, I would check to see if these buttons get any clicks, if they dont you might not need them. Here's a recent WBF that should help: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/smarter-internal-linking-whiteboard-friday
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
What happens if we remove all the links to internal pages from our homepage?
Hi Moz community, We wanna give a try by removing all the links from homepage to internal pages and keep just a free trial button. Will this impact our SEO anyway? We have nearly 15 important internal pages at 2nd and 3rd hierarchy level. They may drop in rankings but we want to risk for few days to understand how it works. Your opinion please! Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Can we ignore "broken links" without redirecting to "new pages"?
Let's say we have reaplced www.website.com/page1 with www.website.com/page2. Do we need to redirect page1 to page2 even page1 doesn't have any back-links? If it's not a replacement, can we ignore a "lost page"? Many websites loose hundreds of pages periodically. What's Google's stand on this. If a website has replaced or lost hundreds of links without reclaiming old links by redirection, will that hurts?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google Site Links question
Are Google site links only ever shown on the top website? Or is it possible for certain queries for the site in position #2 or #3 or something to have site links but the #1 position not have them? If there are any guides, tips or write ups regarding site links and their behavior and optimization please share! Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Are links from directories still good practice?
Ok, so I am new at "link building"....which of course I have read furiously on how that philosophy is changed, it's a goal, not so much a process. I am focusing on great content, social sharing, etc. BUT, I see competitors still getting links from some of the directories that I have found listed on Moz as being "good" directories to list in. For example, yelllow pages, manta, ibegin, hot frog, etc. Do I have the terminology totally twisted here? Is it still good practice to get a couple links from these directories. Or is this practice completely the wrong thing to do post Panda & Penquin. Thanks guys!
Algorithm Updates | | cschwartzel0 -
Direct Domain Name Anchor Text Spammy Links
Hello! I have a website that has been hit with around 120-150 spammy bookmarking sites which I believe are just scraping content from one another or were added by someone that was hired earlier or maybe some other action, but that really doesn't matter. My question is whether I should be worried about that many domains linking to the site in question with anchor text that is "www.domainname.com" and linking to the domain itself? I have done quite a few researches on this issue and the general conclusion is these don't help, but they don't hurt your rankings either. I wanted to hear from the SEOMoz community about it though. My opinion is Google doesn't take them seriously and we shouldn't worry about them, try to take them off and we should simply work on our content, guest posts, produce our generally great deals on our services and move on. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Njave_MCP0 -
Do links from unrelated sites dilute your rankings for your key phrases?
do links from unrelated sites dilute your rankings for your key phrases? i've always heard don't get links from unrelated sites but if that mattered, then how would sites with totally diverse pages such as newspaper sites, sears, and other catalogue sites rank for these diverse subjects on their site? How does Facebook rank when it gets 100,000 links a day from sites that have nothing to do with a social media site? I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this. Also, Do links from unrelated sites give less push than related links? Take care,
Algorithm Updates | | Ron10
Ron0 -
WIll embedding affiliate links from Amazon, commission connection services, and AdSense damage your SEO?
Will having affiliate marketing links and images on your website damage search engine ranking on certain terms? Those affiliate links are just for office tools and online document services and nothing like an adult contents or spamming.
Algorithm Updates | | WebMarketingSmart1 -
Today all of our internal pages all but completely disappeared from google search results. Many of them, which had been optimized for specific keywords, had high rankings. Did google change something?
We had optimized internal pages, targeting specific geographic markets. The pages used the keywords in the url title, the h1 tag, and within the content. They scored well using the SEOmoz tool and were increasing in rank every week. Then all of a sudden today, they disappeared. We had added a few links from textlink.com to test them out, but that's about the only change we made. The pages had a dynamic url, "?page=" that we were about to redirect to a static url but hadn't done it yet. The static url was redirecting to the dynamic url. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | h3counsel0