Hi everyone. I’m looking for real-world insight into SEO internal linking strategies, not just generic advice like “add more links.” I manage a site with a lot of informational content, and while individual articles are well-written, overall rankings feel inconsistent. Some pages rank surprisingly well, others don’t move at all, even though they target similar difficulty keywords. I suspect internal linking might be part of the issue. How do you decide which pages deserve more internal links? Do you actively push priority pages, or let links grow naturally over time? I’m also unsure about anchor text — how optimized is too optimized? If anyone has tested different internal linking strategies and seen measurable ranking changes, I’d really appreciate hearing about your process and results.

I’ve tested a few different SEO internal linking strategies over the years, and the biggest lesson is that intention matters more than volume. Early on, I made the mistake of linking everything to everything, which only diluted relevance. What worked better was identifying “opportunity pages” — content that was already ranking on page two or three and needed a small authority boost. I then added contextual links to those pages from closely related, high-performing articles. These weren’t forced links; they fit naturally into the text and genuinely added value for readers.
Anchor text was another learning curve. Instead of repeating exact keywords, I used descriptive phrases and variations that matched the context. This kept the content readable while still sending clear topical signals to search engines. I also reviewed older articles regularly and updated internal links whenever new relevant content was published. A clear and practical explanation of different approaches, common mistakes, and scalable methods is covered in this resource SEO Internal Linking Strategies toimi.pro/blog/internal-linking-guide/
After applying these tactics consistently, I noticed more stable rankings and better distribution of traffic across the site.

Exactly the kind of insight I was hoping for — thank you!