Using Anchor Links to Make Google Ignore The First Link – Moz

There is a certain type of SEO idea that refuses to die. It is never fully gone, never fully proven, and always shows up again like a raccoon that knows how to open your trash can. The idea behind using anchor links to make Google ignore the first link is one of those classics.

The theory goes like this: if a page links to the same destination more than once, Google may only count the anchor text from one of those links. For years, many SEOs believed the first link got the anchor text credit. That led to a clever workaround. If your navigation linked to a page first with a generic label, maybe you could add a second link using a fragment like #section and persuade Google to treat it differently. In other words, instead of surrendering to boring menu text, you could try a tiny HTML magic trick and sneak in a better keyword-rich signal.

It sounds brilliant. It also sounds like something an SEO would come up with at 1:14 a.m. after staring at crawl data for too long.

Here is the modern reality: this tactic matters far less than people hope, and relying on it as a ranking move is shaky. The conversation is still useful, though, because it teaches a bigger lesson about internal linking, anchor text, site structure, and how Google interprets context. So let’s unpack what this tactic tried to do, why it became popular, what probably still matters today, and what smart site owners should do instead.

What “First Link Priority” Was Supposed to Mean

The old “first link priority” idea came from experiments showing that when one page linked to the same URL multiple times, Google seemed to use only one anchor text signal for interpretation. In many tests, that appeared to be the first link in the source order. This became especially important on websites with large navigation menus.

Imagine your site links to a category page from the main nav using the word Products. Later in the article body, you link to that same page again using the anchor text enterprise CRM software. If Google truly only honored the first anchor text, then your more descriptive contextual link might not be doing what you hoped. That worried SEOs because navigation often appears before the article body in the HTML, which meant the weaker label might “win.”

That concern led to a wave of testing. Some marketers tried changing source order. Others adjusted menus. And some experimented with anchor links, also called named anchors or fragment identifiers, to see if Google would treat a URL with a hash as distinct enough for the second link’s anchor text to count.

Why Anchor Links Entered the Story

An anchor link points to a specific section of a page, often with a fragment identifier such as #pricing, #faq, or #how-it-works. For users, that is helpful. Click the link and you jump directly to the relevant section instead of scrolling like you are trying to find the last clean spoon in a packed dishwasher.

From an SEO perspective, the thought process was simple. If Google saw:

then maybe the second URL would not be treated as an identical duplicate of the first link. If the destination looked slightly different because of the fragment, perhaps Google would process the second anchor text independently. That would let you keep a short nav label while still sending a stronger contextual signal from the body copy.

It was an appealing theory because it was cheap, easy, and delightfully nerdy. No extra budget. No new content. Just a small tweak in markup and a hopeful glance toward the algorithm.

The Catch: A Clever Tactic Is Not the Same as a Reliable Ranking Strategy

This is where the topic gets interesting. Google has long supported anchors for navigating to sections within a page. That means they absolutely have a valid user experience role. Long guides, FAQ pages, documentation hubs, and resource pages benefit from them. They can also help Google understand page structure well enough to surface section-based deep links in search results.

But none of that automatically proves that anchor links are a dependable way to make Google ignore a first internal link and count a later one instead.

In fact, the broader picture suggests caution. Google has repeatedly emphasized descriptive visible anchor text, clean crawlable links, and site structure over cute loopholes. Recent commentary also points away from a simplistic “Google always takes the first link and ignores the rest” interpretation. That does not mean older experiments were fake. It means the web, Google’s systems, and SEO assumptions have evolved enough that treating this tactic as law is risky.

What Probably Matters More Than the Hack

1. Descriptive anchor text still matters

Good anchor text helps users and search engines understand what sits on the other side of the click. If your link says beginner’s guide to technical SEO, that is far more useful than click here or learn more. This remains true whether the link is in navigation, body copy, or a table of contents.

2. Internal links help Google discover and prioritize pages

Internal linking is not some dusty on-page checkbox. It helps search engines discover pages, understand hierarchy, and evaluate relationships between topics. A page with smart, relevant internal links is usually easier to crawl and easier to interpret.

3. Context matters beyond the anchor itself

Modern SEO is not just about the linked words. It is also about the surrounding content, the page type, the site architecture, and whether the link makes sense for real people. A contextual link inside a highly relevant paragraph often sends a stronger semantic signal than a random repeated link jammed in for “optimization.”

4. Fragments are for sections, not miracles

Using a fragment identifier to jump to a section is perfectly reasonable. Using one because you believe it guarantees a fresh bucket of keyword relevance is another story. The first use is user-centered. The second starts drifting into folklore.

So, Can Anchor Links Make Google Ignore the First Link?

The honest answer is: not in a way you should build a strategy around.

Older SEO tests made the tactic famous, and it remains part of search marketing history. But if your ranking plan depends on outsmarting first link priority through fragment URLs, you are probably optimizing the wrong thing. Even if the technique still influences link interpretation in some situations, it is too fragile, too narrow, and too indirect to be your main move.

That is especially true now that Google’s public guidance leans much more heavily toward helpful content, visible anchor text, clear site organization, and sensible internal linking. Put differently: if your internal linking system needs a loophole to work, the system probably needs a redesign.

Where the Tactic Can Still Be Useful

Now for the fair and balanced section. Anchor links are not useless. Far from it. They are excellent when used for the reasons they were actually invented:

• improving user navigation on long pages,
• building a clean table of contents,
• helping visitors jump to FAQs, pricing, examples, or tutorials,
• supporting accessibility and readability,
• creating well-structured long-form content that can earn section-level deep links.

Those uses can indirectly help SEO because they improve user experience, clarify information architecture, and make a page easier to consume. That is a much healthier reason to use anchor links than trying to trick Google into pretending the first link never existed.

A Better Internal Linking Strategy for 2026

If you want stronger rankings, skip the HTML parlor tricks and focus on the parts of internal linking SEO that consistently matter.

Use strong navigation labels

Your main menu should not be vague. If a top-level page is important, label it clearly. “SEO Services” beats “Solutions.” “Pricing” beats “Plans & Stuff.” “Content Marketing Guide” beats “Resources” when the page is really a guide.

Link contextually from relevant pages

Body links from thematically related content still do heavy lifting. A post about site audits should naturally link to pages about crawlability, internal linking, and indexation. Relevance beats randomness every time.

Avoid duplicate-link obsession

Multiple links to the same URL on one page are not automatically evil. Sometimes they are normal. Header navigation, body references, image links, breadcrumbs, and related modules can all point to the same destination. The issue is not duplication by itself. The issue is whether the page remains clear, useful, and intentional.

Do not over-optimize anchor text

Exact-match internal anchors can be fine, but sounding robotic is not. Write like a human who enjoys being understood. If every internal link screams the same keyword phrase, your content begins to read like it was written by a spreadsheet with trust issues.

Audit your links with the right tools

Use a crawler to check inlinks, unique inlinks, orphan pages, and repeated links. Look for patterns. Are important pages buried? Are key pages only linked from navigation? Are generic anchors dominating? The fix is usually structural, not magical.

Example: The Wrong Way vs. the Smart Way

The wrong way

A software company has a top nav link labeled Products that points to /crm. In the article body, they also want to rank that page for customer relationship management software, so they add a second link to /crm#overview and assume the fragment will give them a bonus signal.

Maybe it helps. Maybe it does nothing. Maybe it just makes the team feel busy. None of those outcomes is a strategy.

The smart way

The company renames the nav label to CRM Software, improves the page title and headings, links contextually from related articles like sales pipeline management and lead nurturing, builds a clean table of contents on the CRM page itself, and makes sure the linked sections satisfy real user intent.

That approach aligns user experience, information architecture, and anchor text. No smoke machine required.

Why This Topic Still Matters

The reason people still search for “Using Anchor Links to Make Google Ignore The First Link – Moz” is not because everyone wants a museum tour of old SEO myths. It is because the question touches a real problem: how do you signal relevance when menus, templates, and repeated links get in the way?

That is a fair question. The answer, however, is broader than a single tactic. Your goal is not to make Google ignore one link. Your goal is to build a site where the most important pages are clearly labeled, repeatedly supported by relevant internal links, and easy for both users and crawlers to understand.

When you solve that larger problem, the first-link debate becomes a footnote instead of a crisis.

Experience: What This Looks Like in Real SEO Work

In actual SEO projects, the teams that spend the most time worrying about first link priority are rarely the teams with the biggest gains. The biggest wins usually come from cleaner architecture, clearer anchor text, and better page targeting. I have seen sites obsess over whether a body link to a service page should use a fragment URL while their navigation still used labels like Capabilities, Solutions, and Our Approach. That is like polishing one spoon while the entire kitchen is on fire.

A common pattern goes like this. A company publishes strong long-form content, but the sitewide navigation is generic and template-heavy. Their category pages get linked from every page through the nav, but the in-content links are inconsistent, sparse, or awkward. Someone reads about the old Moz-era trick, tests a few hash links, and hopes rankings jump. Usually, nothing dramatic happens. Then the team finally does the less glamorous work: rename weak navigation labels, connect related articles to money pages, fix orphan pages, remove pointless duplicate links in sidebars, and tighten anchor text so it describes the destination instead of mumbling at it. That is when movement starts showing up.

Another real-world lesson is that anchor links can absolutely improve performance when the page itself is long and layered. A giant guide with a table of contents, well-labeled sections, and jump links often performs better for readers. People stick around longer, bounce less, and find the exact answer they need faster. Those are not small wins. They make content feel organized. They also make it easier for search engines to interpret structure. But notice the difference: the improvement comes from making the page better, not from gaming which internal anchor text gets counted first.

I have also seen ecommerce teams panic because a navigation link says Shoes while blog content links to the same category as trail running shoes for women. Instead of engineering fragment workarounds, the best move was to improve category structure and create subcategory pages that matched real search intent. In other words, rather than trying to force one page to rank for every variation through clever anchors, they built better destinations. Rankings improved because the site became more precise.

The practical takeaway is simple. Treat anchor links as a usability tool with possible structural SEO upside. Treat internal anchor text as a relevance clue, not a cheat code. And treat old “Google ignores the first link” tactics the way you treat expired milk: interesting to examine from a safe distance, but not something to build dinner around.

Conclusion

Using anchor links to make Google ignore the first link is one of those SEO ideas that is just plausible enough to survive for years. It came from a real concern, inspired real experiments, and still gets discussed because internal linking genuinely matters. But in modern SEO, this tactic is better understood as a historical workaround than a dependable growth strategy.

If you want stronger results, focus on the fundamentals that keep proving their value: descriptive anchor text, logical site structure, relevant contextual links, and pages built around clear search intent. Use anchor links because they help people navigate. Use internal links because they help pages get discovered and understood. And if a tactic sounds like it belongs in a magician’s pocket instead of an information architecture plan, it probably should not be running your SEO roadmap.

SEO Tags