Anchor text: how to write links that explain where they lead
Translated from the Spanish original. Leer en español
Listen in Spanish · 4:55
Voices generated with artificial intelligence.
A link's text should explain what is on the other side. "Search Console guide" gives you a clue. "Click here" leaves almost all the work to the sentence around it.
Those words are called anchor text. They help someone decide whether a link is worth following and give Google context about the destination page. Writing them well is not about repeating a keyword until it sounds like a chorus.
What is anchor text and what does it do?
It is the visible part of a text link: the words you can click to visit another address.
In the sentence "You can read the Search Console guide", the anchor text is "Search Console guide". The URL is the destination. They are not the same thing, although a written address can also be used as link text.
Google explains in its link best practices that it uses links to discover pages and as a signal when determining their relevance. The anchor helps it understand what the linked page is about.
That does not make each link a ranking remote control. The words provide a signal and guide navigation; they do not guarantee that Google will rank a URL for the words we have chosen.
How do you write useful link text?
Start with the destination. What will someone find there? Then choose the words that explain it within the sentence you are writing.
Google recommends descriptive, reasonably concise text that is relevant to both the page containing the link and the page receiving it. It also notes that the surrounding words matter.
For example, "In the guide to auditing a website with Screaming Frog, I explain the full process" identifies a specific resource and a reason to open it. Linking only "process" would provide much less information.
Google suggests a simple test: read the link text on its own and ask whether it gives you an idea of the destination. It is not the only check, because context matters, but it helps identify links that explain very little.
Length should serve that description. "Search Console guide" may be enough. Linking a whole four-line sentence can obscure where the important idea starts and ends. There is no need to turn a recommendation to be concise into a magic word count.
It is also worth separating links with context. Google advises against placing them next to each other: they are harder to distinguish and each loses the explanation around it.
When is "click here" unclear?
When it makes someone guess what will happen or read too much surrounding text to understand it.
"Download here" tells you that there is a download, but not what it is. "Download the internal linking guide" identifies the resource. If it is a PDF, saying so near the link can also help someone anticipate what will open.
This is not a universal ban on "here". The W3C accessibility criterion for link purpose allows that purpose to be understood from the link text or its programmatically determined context, such as the same sentence or paragraph.
A "read more" link accompanied by a properly associated summary is therefore not automatically an accessibility failure. That does not make it the best wording in every case. If we can clearly describe the destination without making the text unwieldy, it is worth doing.
These are teaching examples, not links from a real audit or measured results:
| Uninformative text | Alternative for the destination | What it clarifies |
|---|---|---|
| Click here | Check the workshop opening hours | What information the visitor will see |
| More information | What the brake inspection includes | The service or question being explained |
| Download | Download the link review checklist | Which resource the visitor will receive |
| View article | How to review pages that are not indexed | The topic of the article |
If you cannot see all the columns, scroll the table sideways.
No alternative works for every URL. If "Check the opening hours" leads to a sales form with no opening hours, the anchor will be descriptive and the link will still be badly planned.
Do you always need the exact keyword?
There is no need to force it into every link. If it describes the destination and fits naturally, it can appear. If it makes the sentence awkward or promises something the page does not offer, the wording needs another look.
The same Google guide asks writers to use natural language and avoid cramming related keywords into the anchor. Its spam policies describe manipulative practices, including certain links with optimized anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites.
That does not mean a descriptive internal link containing a keyword is prohibited. It is worth distinguishing a useful description from an attempt to manipulate links.
I would not propose a recipe such as "this percentage of branded anchors and that percentage of exact matches", either. The Google recommendations used here do not provide that formula. Treating it as a rule would suggest a level of precision the source does not support.
Consistency is a better test. "Audit pricing", "what an SEO audit includes" and "request an audit" make different promises. They only fit if the destination answers what each one announces.
In my article about choosing an internal link format, I explain a different decision: when to use text, a button, a card or a related-content block. Here, we are working on the words that explain that journey.
What if the link is an image?
When an image is the link, there are no visible words working in the same way as a paragraph. Google says it uses that image's alt attribute as anchor text.
The alt text needs to explain the image's function in its context. The W3C tutorial on functional images provides a clear example: a logo linking to the homepage should identify that destination, rather than simply say "logo".
There is an important qualification. If the same link already contains enough text and the image is only decorative, the W3C allows empty alt text to avoid repeating information. "Every linked image must contain the keyword" would not be a sound conclusion.
The question is what the complete link communicates. A linked photograph, a decorative image accompanying text and an image that triggers an action do not all need the same treatment. I explore that review in the guide to image alt text.
How can you review your website's link text?
I would separate two jobs: finding links that deserve attention and deciding how to rewrite them. A tool helps with the first; it cannot determine the intention of each sentence for you.
Screaming Frog documents a filter for internal outlinks with non-descriptive anchor text. The terms that trigger the warning can be configured, so the list is a starting point, not an editorial verdict.
For a specific URL, its documentation explains how to inspect incoming links in the Inlinks tab. There you can connect the source page, destination and anchor text. You then need to open the page and read the actual sentence.
This would be my review order:
- Check that the destination is correct and delivers what the link promises.
- Read the anchor alone and then within its sentence.
- Replace generic text when a more useful description is available.
- Review image links and the appropriate alt text.
- Avoid adding keywords or links that do not help the reader.
- After making changes, check the published page and follow the link on mobile too.
Review the wording and implementation separately. Google generally recommends crawlable links using an a element and an href attribute. An excellent sentence does not fix a link the search engine cannot interpret correctly.
This review can be part of an SEO audit: first find and prioritize problems, then agree on changes. You do not need to replace every link on a website at once to improve the ones that cause confusion.
Frequently asked questions
Are anchor text and a URL the same thing?
No. Anchor text is what the link displays; the URL is the address it points to. A written URL can be used as visible text, but they perform different functions.
Does "click here" automatically harm SEO?
Google uses it as an example of overly generic text. That does not establish an automatic penalty for using it. Check whether the link and its context clearly explain the destination.
How many words should an anchor contain?
As many as it needs to describe the destination clearly and reasonably concisely. The cited Google guide does not set a word count.
Does every link to a page need different text?
There is no need to invent synonyms for variety. The wording should fit its context and consistently describe what someone will find.
Before the coffee is finished
A link is a small promise. If it says "opening hours", the destination should contain opening hours. If it says "guide", it should explain which guide and what it is for.
Before looking for a supposedly perfect anchor for Google, check that a person understands why they should follow it. That test does not guarantee rankings. It does stop a website filling up with doors that all have the same sign: "here".
Sources last checked: 11 November 2026. English internal links checked: 12 November 2026.
