Internal link relevance VS keyword cannibalization

[Janiform]

Lately, I've been confused about internal link building, topic relevance and keyword cannibalization. It's probably best if I share examples.

Main article 1: info intent, e.g. "grooming your dog" (fake keyword as an example). It's a specific query, pretty long tail and there are no "longer tail" versions of it. It's a 3k words article and I wanted to boost it with internal links. So, I write a supporting article targeting the same theme but not the same keyword, e.g. "bathing your dog". This support content is smaller in terms of number of words and internally links to the dog grooming article with exact match anchor. Result: main article 1 now ranks for dog bathing AND dog grooming, but the dog grooming ranking doesn't improve.

So, main article kw = "grooming your dog", support kw = "bathing your dog", and the support mentions the main kw several times and then exact match links to the main article. So, the link text in the support = "grooming your dog".

This has happened several times now, which made me think: if the main article "eats" the keyword of the supporting article simply because the support links to it (with the main article kw), then for internal links anchors matter less and article topics matter more. From there, it's a short jump to the conclusion that if I want the dog grooming article to get a boost through internal links for its own keyword... I have to write supporting articles that cover the same keyword (but with a different angle). So, I set up a bunch of tests.

Main article 2, 3, 4, etc.: these are all info intent or review style articles. After the above kept happening, I decided to create supporting articles targeting the same keyword as the main. There are several differences: supports are like 600-1.000 words, solid on-page SEO, one image only. The mains are much bigger (2-3k words or more), perfectionist on-page with multiple images, H2s, H3s, alt texts, etc. Just to be sure, the supports cover the same kw but from a different angle. The main article might be an "ultimate guide", while the support is like a X do's and X don'ts type article. Basically, the mains covering everything and supports cover one aspect of the topic only. Now, for the internal links I use exact match anchors. Why? To use the "keyword eating" idea I saw in the wild. The whole idea is: nothing is as relevant as a link from an article about the same topic. In terms of external link building, all links go to the main and not the support just to be safe.

Now, whenever I come across keyword cannibalization chats it's always about:

• Don't get external links for all pages that are competing for the same kw ("pick one, not all")
• Don't have duplicate content ("I don't, content for the mains and supports is 100% unique and differently written, just same kw")
• Don't have thin content ("supporting articles all have added value, i.e. unique insights not shared in a main")

In other words: the only box I can tick in terms of keyword cannibalization is that I have multiple pages about one keyword, but what about topic relevance?

I've tested expanding main articles with text and images. Nothing. I tried the "write about similar topic and link" approach and it eats keywords, but doesn't boost the main kw so kind of nothing. And as for the supporting articles targeting the same keywords, it's a mixed bag as well in terms of results. It would have been fine if we're talking about 1-2 articles, but I'm talking about having tested two dozen articles here over a time period of 6 months.

It almost seems like internal links only help you rank for additional kw's and don't boost the main kw anymore?

Wtf is going on with internal links these days lol. I'm confused. At this point, I'm almost second-guessing how to do internal link building all together. What is the right approach? What am I missing? How would you do internal linking for "grooming your dog"?

 

[Ryuzaki]

It sounds to me you're having a problem with query intent.

I always recommend people actually search the terms they're writing about and see what Google is ranking. Often it'll be the same set of pages. Your example is perfect with "grooming your dog" and "bathing your dog". Grooming, to me, means brushing, clipping nails, and bathing. But to most people maybe it only means bathing.

Let me make up another example. Say you were to search "kitchen scissors" and "kitchen shears". Again, I'm making this up and not checking, but I'd imagine you're going to get the exact same set of results, perhaps in different orders, because "shears" and "scissors" are synonyms and "kitchen" sets the intent.

So if you write two articles, one on "kitchen shears" and one on "kitchen scissors" they're going to compete with each other and likely cause the rankings of both of them to be diminished.

This shouldn't have anything to do with the anchor texts you're using, etc. That's why I think you may be running into intent problems.

The best thing to do is to write an article and deal with ONLY the intent of the query. Don't fluff it out. For instance, don't do this:

• Best Dog Hair Clippers
• Top 5 Dog Hair Clippers
• Best Dog Hair Clippers Under $25
• Why You Should Clip Your Dogs Hair
• What to Do With the Hair Mess After
• Should You Brush After Clipping Dog Hair?

Don't do that. Just write about the clippers. Here's the conundrum. Do you include the "Under $25" section? Back in the day I'd have said yes, but now I'd say no because the intent is different. A new problem arises... If you write "Best Dog Hair Clippers" and then "Best Dog Hair Clippers Under $25" you're now going to have a cannibalization type situation going on, even though the intents are different, the on-page is too similar. This is how you end up with multiple articles on the same keyword with different relevance (intent). It's screwy but how the game is right now.

It almost seems like internal links only help you rank for additional kw's and don't boost the main kw anymore?

I disagree with this entirely, which is why I think you're having internal competition due to intent-crossing.

When I internally link, it's always the exact match keyword, every time. And every time, the rankings rise for that keyword. But I'm very careful about checking the SERPs for the same intent.

 

[proto]

When I internally link, it's always the exact match keyword, every time. And every time, the rankings rise for that keyword. But I'm very careful about checking the SERPs for the same intent.

Are you using 100% exact match keyword for all the internal links?

 

[Janiform]

Don't do that. Just write about the clippers. Here's the conundrum. Do you include the "Under $25" section? Back in the day I'd have said yes, but now I'd say no because the intent is different. A new problem arises... If you write "Best Dog Hair Clippers" and then "Best Dog Hair Clippers Under $25" you're now going to have a cannibalization type situation going on, even though the intents are different, the on-page is too similar. This is how you end up with multiple articles on the same keyword with different relevance (intent). It's screwy but how the game is right now.

And how would you approach a situation with long tails and related keywords in terms of internal linking? See example below.

I'm making this up, but let's go with "growing tomatoes at home". I've got a long article covering all aspects of it. It's ranking for dozens of keywords and let's say I have many other articles covering different fruits & veggies ("growing onions at home", "growing radishes at home", etc.) that also rank for tons of stuff. The rankings for the tomato article look like this:

• growing tomatoes at home - top 3
• growing tomatoes with ... - top 3
• growing tomatoes - top 5
• tomato growing techniques - top 5
• (specific technique) at home - top 10
• growing veggies - top 5
• tomato grower - top 10
• tomato growing tools - top 10
• etc.

Basically, this main article ranks for almost anything that involves tomatoes + something related to growing even when it's super broad. When you look at the SERPs, there's overlap (same pages ranking for multiple queries) but it varies wildly. Some of the keywords above have 60% overlap with the main keyword, while others are 80% unique with very little overlap. There's always SOME overlap, even with short tail keywords.

Now, in terms of the actual subject matter there is some overlap between doing this stuff at home and outdoors but there are also clear differences (some stuff you simply can't or shouldn't do indoors). So, the information for indoors vs outdoors SHOULD actually be different.

What's the right play here for writing supporting articles for internal links @Ryuzaki ? Is it safe to write supporting content about "tomato growing techniques", "tomato growing tools", etc. because those keywords are related but not synonyms? Or will this still cannibalize because the main article ranks for it?

And just to play devil's advocate here: should I throw this approach out the window and keep it stupid simple? Example: any time I write anything about "tomatoes" (e.g. tomato brands, are tomatoes healthy, tomato recipes) I internally link to the main article.

To summarize: I'm trying to understand how complex my internal link building should be. Does it require a stupid simple approach and, if not, how do you avoid the cannibals when writing supporting content.

 

[Ryuzaki]

I try to satisfy two criteria:

1. Are the topics of sufficiently different intent?
2. Do I plan on publishing separate articles for each topic?

If the answer to #2 is no, then you can include it in the main big article, as long as it doesn't stray too far from #1.

"Growing tomatoes at home" and "growing tomatoes in a container" are close enough to include in the same master article. You want their intents to be close enough that you don't stop serving the direct intent of the main keyword.

Back to the dog clippers. If you want to rank for the "under $25" variation, you're better off putting it in the master article, the big guide. Because if you do it separate, you'll have competition.

I see it all the time. People will publish different articles like:

• best baseball bat
• best baseball bat under $50
• best baseball bat under $100
• best baseball bat for teenagers
• best baseball bat for adults
• best baseball bat for professionals

Then they start link building to them all and all of them start to do okay but can't break onto the front page no matter what. They all start popping in and out of each other's SERPs. And if you track with something like SERPWoo you'll see 5 or 6 of them in the top 100 for each keyword. This hurts all of them and none will perform the way they should.

I suspect it's a situation they'll fix eventually, seeing how it wasn't a problem before. Right now you're best to to serve the intent directly as best you can without making separate articles for competing long-tail variations. The examples above are sufficiently different intents, but they'll still compete. It's not an ideal situation Google has going on.

But "growing tomatoes at home" and "growing tomatoes in backyard" are probably returning nearly identical results. This is why you have to do a manual check. You can figure out which keyphrases are actually the same query in Google's eyes.