Internal content links missing relevance

[deeper]

Hi,
let's say there is a site about fruits, with a comprehensive page about apples. In only one sentence and only once "banasas" are mentioned on this apple page.

Would you link internally with "bananas" to the bananas-page?

Of course this is possible and not bad, some user may be interested in bananas as well. But is it a good link in terms of enough relevance from the apples page? As the apple page is comprehensive, nearly all of the fruits are mentioned there once, anywhere. Doing the same with all and how to choose?

[jamesMP]

Putting aside how Google would view this, and looking from a user point-of-view, I would link, but only if relevant (ie will it benefit the user to know more about bananas before reading the rest of your content) and then only on the first instance of the word.

From a search engine point-of-view, are they smart enough to assess the wider context and know that apples and bananas are both fruits and that you have a fruit based website? Maybe not. I'd probably still create the internal link anyway if it helps with usability.

[deeper]

"...only on the first instance of the word".

The page has only one instance of "bananas" (and one of cherries, one of plums, apricots...).

That's why it may be not the best link in terms of relevance (being topical). O.K., both are fruits, it's not like linking on a toys page to a insurance page. And I suppose the search engines understand that. But using all short citations of all the fruits (each has only one) could be a "inflationary" and unnecessary use of internal content linking. Though all fruits each are only linked once as there is only one citation and though the text is still good readable.

It's not really necessary for the user to know more about bananas before reading the rest. It's more like "there is a bananas page too which also could be interesting for you, as it is also a sort of fruits".

When is it worth to use a "small opportunity" in the text to create an internal content link? Which also exists already in the navi.

[jimbeetle]

Well, if you're telling the user that "there is a banana page too," then it would make sense if you did link to it.

And don't over think things. If something seems right in it's context, then it probably is.

[deeper]

Let me give another, similar example.

On the apples page there is a certain paragraph about vitamins. I mention there that also "...raspberries, lemons, bananas, passion fruit, apricots, kiwi fruits and cherries have a lot of vitamins".

All of these fruits except lemons are only mentioned in this paragraph. Would you link them all here internally?

Lemons have a small paragraph for its own after the paragraph above. Linking them there?

[JD_Toims]

I'd link. Google's move to the knowledge graph and the associations being made should help the algo determine everything linked is related and it's likely to make better associations over time. As far as which occurrence to link, I'd go with the first occurrence of the word on the page.

[deeper]

Ah o.k.

I cannot give good reasons, but, anyway, it doesn' feel good for me when linking seven words in one sentence.

[jimbeetle]

Then maybe you want to rethink including that content in the first place. If it's something where visitors would expect to see links and you're not providing them, then maybe those references to the other types of fruit are unnecessary.

[JD_Toims]

I cannot give good reasons, but, anyway, it doesn' feel good for me when linking seven words in one sentence.

I would probably *display* the info as what looks like a <p> for visitors, but would likely try to give search engines a bit more semantic meaning with something along the lines of:

<style>
aside ul,aside ul li {padding:0;margin:0;list-style-type:none;display:inline;}
</style>

<aside>
<p>Other Fruit Reources: <ul><li>fruit 1, <li>fruit 2, <li>fruit 3, <li>fruit 4.</ul>
</aside>

[edited by: JD_Toims at 11:44 pm (utc) on Sep 11, 2013]

[phranque]

in your vitamins example I would link to the fragment identifier of the vitamins section of each specific fruit page.

the ul markup a suggested by JD_ is a good idea if presented as a list of links.
if your list is written in a more narrative way that reads naturally, you should be okay.

[deeper]

Good ideas to create semantic relevance!

As my pages are big and it is not difficult to have several opportunities to link internally I always ask myself where the best place in content may be. In terms of usability and Google as well.

Internal content links are completely in the hands of the webmaster, why not using this possibility and making them as good as possible?