You noindexed a page but still link to it everywhere. You're flushing equity down a drain.
Hot take: a noindexed page that's internally linked is an equity black hole. Links flow in, nothing flows back.
The cleanup checklist:
— List every URL you've set to noindex.
— Crawl and find all internal links pointing to those noindexed URLs.
— For each, decide: does this page even need to be linked? Usually not.
— Remove internal links to noindexed pages, or the equity stops dead there.
— Redirect that link-juice toward indexable pages that can actually rank.
Google eventually treats long-term noindex links as nofollow anyway, so you're literally wasting passes.
How many of your internal links point at noindexed dead ends right now? Audit it.
—
Хочешь больше anchor text ratios? @AnchorTheory
Hot take: a noindexed page that's internally linked is an equity black hole. Links flow in, nothing flows back.
The cleanup checklist:
— List every URL you've set to noindex.
— Crawl and find all internal links pointing to those noindexed URLs.
— For each, decide: does this page even need to be linked? Usually not.
— Remove internal links to noindexed pages, or the equity stops dead there.
— Redirect that link-juice toward indexable pages that can actually rank.
Google eventually treats long-term noindex links as nofollow anyway, so you're literally wasting passes.
How many of your internal links point at noindexed dead ends right now? Audit it.
—
Хочешь больше anchor text ratios? @AnchorTheory
Your breadcrumbs are doing nothing for rankings. Fight me.
Everyone treats breadcrumbs like a ranking lever. They're not. They're a navigation pattern that happens to throw off a little structured-data garnish.
Here's the problem: every breadcrumb on a category page points up the tree. You're funneling equity toward pages that already have ten other links pointing at them — homepage, category, parent. Your money pages, the deep ones, get nothing back.
Breadcrumbs are great for users and for the rich result. As a link-equity tool they're a rounding error you've convinced yourself matters.
Am I wrong, or are you just attached to the snippet?
Everyone treats breadcrumbs like a ranking lever. They're not. They're a navigation pattern that happens to throw off a little structured-data garnish.
Here's the problem: every breadcrumb on a category page points up the tree. You're funneling equity toward pages that already have ten other links pointing at them — homepage, category, parent. Your money pages, the deep ones, get nothing back.
Breadcrumbs are great for users and for the rich result. As a link-equity tool they're a rounding error you've convinced yourself matters.
Am I wrong, or are you just attached to the snippet?
Unpopular opinion: the second link to a page on the same URL is wasted.
Google's old first-link-counts behavior never fully died. When two links on one page point to the same target, the anchor of the first is the one that tends to register. The second link still passes some equity, but its anchor text? Often ignored.
So when your nav links "Shoes" and your hero block re-links "running shoes for flat feet" to the same URL — congratulations, you may have just thrown away your best anchor.
Put the descriptive link first. Or split the targets. Stop letting your menu eat your keyword.
Who's actually testing link order on their templates? Or are we all just guessing?
Google's old first-link-counts behavior never fully died. When two links on one page point to the same target, the anchor of the first is the one that tends to register. The second link still passes some equity, but its anchor text? Often ignored.
So when your nav links "Shoes" and your hero block re-links "running shoes for flat feet" to the same URL — congratulations, you may have just thrown away your best anchor.
Put the descriptive link first. Or split the targets. Stop letting your menu eat your keyword.
Who's actually testing link order on their templates? Or are we all just guessing?