Does linking back to the same page you are on hurt?

[onlinesource]

Simple question. My page is /stuff.html and so on mysite.com/stuff.html, I link the target "stuff" to /stuff.html essentially putting the user right back where they are.

In case your wondering how I did this, I found a plugin which scans for keywords and turns them into links but since the keyword is on the page it was linked to, there is a link on that page which links back to itself.

I've seen several websites do this on pages and those sites rank very well, maybe in spite of it. So, does it hurt or not really matter?

[ken_b]

From a user experience perspective I think that linking to the same base page is a really bad idea.

The exception to that would be linking to a named anchor on the page (ie: page.htm#new_stuff). There might be several of those links on a page, and depending on the size of the page they can be very helpful and increase user satisfaction.

On the original question I haven't read anything indicating that a link to the same base page makes much difference either way. Others may have more insight on that.
.

[onlinesource]

I guess the question is, when you link to mysite.com within mysite.com/stuff.html does it holds any value for the site or does Google still look at it like an internal link?

[Planet13]

"Simple question. My page is /stuff.html and so on mysite.com/stuff.html, I link the target "stuff" to /stuff.html essentially putting the user right back where they are... I've seen several websites do this on pages and those sites rank very well, maybe in spite of it."

I think (hope) that if they DO get any ranking boost, it is just a glitch.

My guess is that those sites that do it and rank well either 1) Have a lot of great content, or 2) are ranking due to a lot of spammy tactics unrelated to the self linking.

~~~~

But I think most users would agree with ken_b and I that it is an awful user experience.

[tbear]

I would think that the majority of existing sites do this, simply within their nav links.....

[onlinesource]

From what I have read, there are three types of internal links.

1.Links that send people from one page to another.
2.Anchors, where people land on different parts of the page like a wiki article about the President separated by his early life through his Presidential campaign.
3. And internal linking on it's own page, trying to trick a search engine.

I am referring to #3. Let's say say that my website is coolthings.com and I want to rank for stuff, so I create a page called /stuff.com and on that page, have a backlink titled "stuff" going to coolthings.com. Is that seen as a backlink even though on it's the same site?

I just see this trick used often and it usually works. I have a competitor of mine who links back to his own homepage url www.hissite.com four times in the same article. I know that is likely not why he ranks #1 for that keyword, maybe in spite of that?

[krishseo]

Let me know what is the purpose of having self link.

Is it for user to stay on same page or for rankings

I think there will be no use for such self links, previously there might be a little use (3-4 yrs back), but now there is no use

[southflorida]

i do it... it helps, its stupid i know.

i anchor different terms through the page though, i dont link the same term twice on a page and never more than 3 links on the page in the body text (not that any of that means anything, just what i have been doing). i heard that G gives more weight to the first link on a page, doesnt really matter because i just want the diversity of anchor text. i also change the color of the anchors to match general text so it isnt the standard blue that is typical of a hyperlink, that way the users dont see it, click it and get annoyed... as someone mentioned above.

the reason i do it is for anchors, i feel way safer getting a link on my site as opposed to finding or "gaining" links around the web. my competitors seem to have a hard time taking my positioning or bumping me down. i take top placement while they're trying to build links everywhere and risking a penalty.

interlinking some pages of your site is just good practice imho... especially to the service/product pages. if you write a blog about a service, anchor text that key phrase to the service page. it's an easy link to whats most important. this is by far better than linking a page to itself... but right now i dont have much to play with, and it's not needed.

please understand, i would do inbound if the target was worth it. this particular industry allows me to rank with as little as 200 words and a hand full of links. OPs niche is probably tougher and may actually take some creative juice... and actual "work". it would be pointless (a total waste of time) for me to develop a real marketing strategy, develop a content strategy, create in-depth content, build out a site with more than 3 pages, local outreach, complementary company/product/service outreach, asset development, social presence, blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc... i would get the same results with the crap i build (and rank) in a couple hours.

shady, yep, do i care... not so much. it's quick, it works, havent had an issue.

it would be worth testing it for yourself... a couple internal links isnt going to tank a site anyway.

hope that helps.

[Robert Charlton]

Possibly of interest regarding named anchors...

For a while, back in 2009, for some large sites, Google serps returned onpage fragment identifiers as mini-sitelinks. These were links to named anchors, usually in large reference sites like Wikipedia and Internet Movie Database. We discussed these here...

Page Fragment Navigation in Mini Sitelinks - and snippet!
Aug-Sept 2009
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3977406.htm [webmasterworld.com]

I'm not seeing these any more in the serps, which suggests that either Google found that this type of sitelink wasn't that helpful to users... and/or it might mean that named anchors on large reference sites have gone out of fashion.

Wikipedia is still using named anchors as a navigational tool, and they are still genuinely useful. Certain types of Wikipedia pages that were divided into named anchor sections, though, now seem to be split up into multiple pages... perhaps because pages were getting too large. Ditto, I'd say, with IMDB... though IMDB is often using javascript to hide or reveal page sections.

As for same-page links just for ranking, conceivably anchor text on a page might have some tiny effect, but this feels a lot like trying to pull yourself up off the ground by tugging on your shoelaces. This is not where I'd put my energies, particularly if it also creates a bad user experience.

In case you're wondering how I did this, I found a plugin which scans for keywords and turns them into links but since the keyword is on the page it was linked to, there is a link on that page which links back to itself.

I'd avoid this kind of navigation like the plague. YMMV.

[netmeg]

I'd avoid this kind of navigation like the plague. YMMV.

Me too. <shudder>