Internal Linking at Scale: The Hub-and-Spoke Model with Real Examples

Internal linking is the highest-ROI on-site project most sites never finish. It costs nothing, requires no outreach, and compounds — yet most sites have 200 orphan pages and zero internal-link strategy. The hub-and-spoke model fixes this without exotic tooling.

Table of contents

1. Why internal linking compounds · 2. The hub-and-spoke model · 3. Anchor text rules · 4. Finding high-leverage missing links · 5. Orphan pages: the silent killer · 6. Footer + sidebar links: still useful? · 7. FAQ

Why does internal linking compound?

Internal links pass three signals: PageRank flow (yes, still real and confirmed in leaked Google API documentation), topical relevance (anchor text + surrounding context), and crawl prioritization (links from frequently-crawled pages get crawled faster). A new article internally linked from 5 high-traffic pages indexes within hours; the same article published as an orphan can take weeks.

The hub-and-spoke model

A hub page covers a topic comprehensively (2,000–4,000 words, defines the category). Spoke pages cover sub-topics in depth (1,000–2,000 words each). Hub links to every spoke; every spoke links back to the hub and to 2–3 sibling spokes. **This pattern outperforms flat linking by 30–50% in long-tail visibility** because Google reads the cluster as a topical authority unit, not isolated pages.

Anchor text rules

1. Use descriptive anchor text — never 'click here' or 'read more'. 2. Vary anchor text across links to the same destination (exact match, partial, branded). 3. Include the target page's primary keyword in 60–70% of inbound anchors. 4. Avoid sitewide identical anchors (footer link with same text from every page) — Google discounts them. 5. Surround the link with relevant context — anchor + surrounding sentence is the unit Google evaluates.

Finding high-leverage missing links

Method: list your top 50 pages by traffic. For each, search Google with site:yourdomain.com + the target page's primary keyword. Pages that mention the keyword but don't link to the target are missing-link candidates. **A 4-hour audit of 50 pages typically surfaces 100–200 high-leverage missing internal links** — adding them often produces visible ranking lifts within 2 weeks.

Orphan pages: the silent killer

Orphan pages have no incoming internal links. Find them with Screaming Frog: crawl the site, then compare against XML sitemap — pages in the sitemap but not in the crawl are orphans. Either link them in (if they should rank) or noindex/delete them (if they shouldn't). Carrying orphan pages indefinitely dilutes site quality signals.

Footer + sidebar links: still useful?

Limited use — Google heavily discounts sitewide footer/sidebar links since 2023. Useful for: legally-required pages (privacy, terms), top-level navigation, category hubs (where every-page presence reflects real architecture). Counterproductive for: keyword-stuffed footer link farms, '50 city pages' footer dumps. Quality > quantity, sitewide.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many internal links per page is too many?

Hard to overdo within reason — Google's old '100 links per page' guideline was retired years ago. Modern recommendation: as many as serve readers contextually; quality of placement matters more than count.

Should I use rel='nofollow' on internal links?

Almost never. The PageRank-sculpting strategy that motivated internal nofollow stopped working in 2009. Use 'noopener noreferrer' for security on external links; keep internal links clean.

Do AI engines care about internal linking?

Yes — internal links help AI crawlers discover and contextualize pages. The hub-and-spoke pattern strengthens entity-cluster signals that AI engines use to assess topical authority.

Are breadcrumbs enough?

Helpful for navigation and crawl, insufficient as a complete internal-link strategy. Breadcrumbs link up-tree only; you need cross-cluster and contextual links too.

Can I automate internal linking with AI?

Yes for first drafts (suggest links based on phrase matching), but human review is essential — automated tools regularly insert links that hurt UX or pass low relevance signals. Use AI as a finder, not a publisher.