Anchor Text
Last updated
Anchor text is the clickable text of a hyperlink. It is one of the strongest single-factor signals Google uses to understand what a target page is about, which makes it both a powerful optimisation lever and a common cause of penalties when overused.
Why does anchor text matter?
When another site links to yours, the anchor text they choose tells Google what the linked page is about, in their words. If many sites link to the same page using anchor text containing “core web vitals”, Google reads that as evidence the page is about Core Web Vitals.
This effect is strong enough that, historically, sites manipulated it directly. The 2012 Penguin update was Google’s first major intervention against unnatural anchor text patterns, and it worked by demoting whole sites. That is no longer how it operates. Penguin became part of the core algorithm in 2016 and changed character with it: its data refreshes in real time, and it “devalues spam by adjusting ranking based on spam signals, rather than affecting ranking of the whole site”.1 Much of the anchor-text advice still circulating was written for the earlier model.
What are the types of anchor text?
Exact-match. The anchor text exactly matches the target page’s primary keyword. “Core web vitals” linking to the Core Web Vitals page.
Partial-match. Contains the keyword but with additional words. “How to improve core web vitals” or “guide to core web vitals”.
Branded. Contains the brand name. “the seo handbook”, “according to the seo handbook”.
Naked URL. The URL itself as anchor text. “https://seohandbook.co.uk/technical-seo/core-web-vitals/”.
Generic. Non-descriptive anchors. “click here”, “read more”, “this article”, “learn more”.
Image links. When an image links to a page, the image’s alt text functions as anchor text.
LSI / semantic. Anchors using related but non-keyword terms. “Page experience metrics” linking to a Core Web Vitals page.
Link attributes
The rel attribute on a link tells crawlers how to treat the connection between the linking page and the target.
Dofollow is not an actual attribute. It describes a standard link with no rel restriction. A dofollow link passes ranking signal from the linking page to the destination. This is the default for all links.
rel="nofollow" was introduced by Google in 2005 to reduce comment spam. It originally directed crawlers not to follow the link or transfer PageRank. In 2019, Google reclassified nofollow as a hint rather than a directive: Google may still crawl the URL and may use the link as a weak signal in some contexts.2 In practice, nofollow links do not contribute meaningfully to rankings, though they can drive referral traffic and appear in link profile audits.
rel="ugc" marks user-generated content: forum posts, blog comments, and similar contributions. It signals that the link was placed by a site user rather than the site owner, and Google weights it accordingly.
rel="sponsored" marks paid links, affiliate links, and any link that exists within a commercial relationship. Google prefers sponsored for these links but still accepts nofollow: the attribute “was previously recommended for these types of links and is still an acceptable way to flag them, though sponsored is preferred”.3 What breaches the spam policies is leaving a paid link qualified by neither.
Attributes can be combined: rel="nofollow sponsored" is valid.
For link building, the attribute matters alongside the anchor text type: a contextual dofollow link from an authoritative domain carries substantially more weight than the same anchor text in a nofollow link. When auditing your link profile, filtering to dofollow links first gives the clearest picture of what is contributing to rankings.
Natural distribution patterns
A site with an organically earned link profile has a varied mix of anchor types. The exact distribution varies by industry and brand recognition, but typical patterns:
- 40-60% branded anchors (for established brands)
- 15-25% naked URL anchors
- 10-20% generic anchors (“here”, “this article”)
- 10-15% partial-match anchors
- 5-10% exact-match anchors
For unbranded or new sites, the branded percentage is often lower and the URL/generic percentages higher. As the brand grows, the distribution shifts toward branded.
The pattern that triggers concern is high exact-match concentration on commercial pages. A page receiving 60% exact-match anchors all targeting the same commercial keyword looks manipulated. What follows is usually devaluation rather than a penalty: the links stop passing what they were built to pass.1
Anchor text and rankings
The relationship between anchor text and rankings is well-established but non-linear:
- One high-quality exact-match anchor can move rankings meaningfully
- A handful of relevant exact-match anchors in a varied profile is helpful
- Exact-match concentration above 5-10% on a commercial page begins to look unnatural
- Aggressive exact-match patterns get the offending links devalued, and in the clearest cases attract a manual action
The right strategy is to earn exact-match anchors naturally through content that earns the link (the editorial citation will sometimes use the keyword), and to avoid building or requesting exact-match anchors at scale.
Internal anchor text
Internal anchors operate under different rules. Because you control them, Google treats them as a softer signal than external anchors, but they still influence how the linked page is understood.
The pattern that works internally:
- Use descriptive anchor text that tells the user (and search engine) what the linked page covers
- Vary the wording naturally across the site rather than using the exact same anchor every time
- Avoid generic anchors (“click here”, “read more”) as defaults
- Don’t fear exact-match internally; the over-optimisation risk is much lower for internal links than external
Internal anchor text is one of the most consistently underused on-page SEO levers. Many sites have hundreds of internal links using the same generic anchors, missing easy ranking lifts.
Anchor text in digital PR
Digital PR pitches sometimes ask the journalist for specific anchor text. The right answer is almost always: don’t ask. Editorial control belongs to the journalist; pitching with anchor text demands signals an SEO-driven motivation that journalists often resent and editors sometimes reject.
The best policy: provide the URL you want linked, let the journalist choose the anchor. Most editorial coverage produces branded or naked-URL anchors, which contribute to a healthy link profile.
How do you audit your anchor text profile?
Tools that report anchor text distribution:
- Ahrefs > Site Explorer > Anchors. Shows distribution by exact text and type.
- Semrush > Backlink Analytics > Anchors.
- Google Search Console > Links > Top linking text.
The Search Console view is limited but free; the third-party tools provide deeper segmentation.
The audit:
- Pull anchor distribution for your top commercial pages
- Identify any pages with >20% exact-match concentration
- For those pages, investigate the source domains; are they low-quality, paid, or otherwise manipulated?
- Plan a diversification strategy: more branded coverage, more partial-match earned naturally, fewer exact-match acquisitions
Common anchor text mistakes
| Mistake | Effect |
|---|---|
| High exact-match concentration on commercial pages | Links devalued; manual action risk in clear cases |
| Identical anchor across hundreds of internal links | Wasted signal; templated appearance |
| Generic anchors as default (“click here”, “read more”) | No relevance signal |
| Pitching exact-match anchors in PR outreach | Damages relationship; reduces coverage |
| Buying links with target anchors | Links nullified; spend wasted; manual action risk |
| Ignoring image alt text on links | Lost relevance signal |
Frequently asked questions
Should I disavow links with bad anchor text?
Almost never. Google’s published test is that you should disavow only if you have a considerable number of spammy links and they have caused a manual action or likely will. Bad anchor text on its own does not meet it, and links Google has already devalued are not made better by disavowing them. For most sites, mild over-optimisation in anchors is better addressed by acquiring more diverse links going forward.
Does Google still use anchor text as a ranking factor?
Yes, prominently. Despite years of “anchor text doesn’t matter as much” speculation, anchor text remains one of the strongest single-factor signals in the algorithm.
Can I change anchor text on my own site to fix over-optimisation?
Yes, and it can help. Internal anchors are within your control; varying them across the site reduces the per-anchor concentration on any single phrase.
