The use of "related posts" at the bottom of articles

[Trump]

A lot of sites use "related posts" and "read also" scripts at the bottom of their articles.

Recently I have become very detailed (anal) about internal linking. Every post on my site is carefully optimized in terms of internal linking.

Currently I have a "related post" plugin at the bottom of each post, it recommends 4 articles from the same category.

Now, my site is very broad. So I "snipe" my internal linking carefully. If I write about CPUs I only link to posts about CPUs within the text. But since it´s in the same category as other tech stuff, related posts can be about mobile phones, how to measure Internet speeds and so on.

I could of course put tags on each post and code the plugin to only show related posts within that tag. It would result in articles linking to the same posts twice in the same article.

My specific site is mainly doing affiliate offers, but with a lot of info articles without ads (ad earnings are a piss in the ocean in my country). The info posts are mostly there to boost topical relevancy and to internal link.

One argument would then be that since I don´t use ads, at least not so far, it doesn´t really matter that much if people go through several posts on my website. Since I just want them to go to affiliate posts and then buy something through it.

Alright, I´m going off on a tangent here.

My question is not really about my specific site, but "related posts" in general.

My theory is that it can dilute the internal linking quite a lot, even if the topics are in the same category. It could potentially result in the amount of link juice lessen for each internal link. Since links will be sent to several posts and some of them being less important.

For example, lets say I have a "booster post" called "How to fix the wheels on a bicycle". From it I link to my "best bicycles" post. Only one link in the article.

If I would add "related posts" at the bottom that links to "Why are red bicycles so popular", "buy a car or a bicycle" and "how to spot urine on your bicycle seat" - then I imagine that it could decrease the power and relevancy quite a lot.

Has anyone compared the usage and non-usage of "related posts" on a non-ecommerce site before? What were your findings?

I googled "Best protein powders" and see that Forbes are one of a few on the first page that aren´t using related posts: https://www.forbes.com/health/body/best-protein-powders/

What do you guys think and what´s your experience?

Thanks.

 

[Ryuzaki]

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're envisioning. It's not a matter of 1 link gets 100% of the out-flowing page rank and if I have 4 related posts at the bottom then all 5 share 20% of the page rank each.

What really happens is links within the main content get more emphasis in terms of page rank, other algo metrics, and relevance. And even then, there's the "reasonable surfer" algo-thing where links higher up the page get a greater emphasis.

And finally, your related posts at the bottom are receiving a much smaller emphasis because they're supplemental content, they aren't in the content and don't have surrounding textual relevance, etc.

If you're going to get concerned about the related posts, are you also removing links out of your main navigation, sidebar, and footer? You see how far this splitting of hairs can go?

It's inconsequential. I think the right way to think about it is "do I want people to click on another post, or do I not want that exit point available so hopefully they scroll back up and buy some protein powder?"

This is one of those things you should do for the people and the goals you want them to go through, not for Google and their robots, because Google has modeled this and figured it out pretty well. No need to worry about them here. That's my take, anyways.

 

[Trump]

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're envisioning. It's not a matter of 1 link gets 100% of the out-flowing page rank and if I have 4 related posts at the bottom then all 5 share 20% of the page rank each.

What really happens is links within the main content get more emphasis in terms of page rank, other algo metrics, and relevance. And even then, there's the "reasonable surfer" algo-thing where links higher up the page get a greater emphasis.

And finally, your related posts at the bottom are receiving a much smaller emphasis because they're supplemental content, they aren't in the content and don't have surrounding textual relevance, etc.

If you're going to get concerned about the related posts, are you also removing links out of your main navigation, sidebar, and footer? You see how far this splitting of hairs can go?

It's inconsequential. I think the right way to think about it is "do I want people to click on another post, or do I not want that exit point available so hopefully they scroll back up and buy some protein powder?"

This is one of those things you should do for the people and the goals you want them to go through, not for Google and their robots, because Google has modeled this and figured it out pretty well. No need to worry about them here. That's my take, anyways.

Is there evidence to any of this or is it just guesses/theories?

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're envisioning. It's not a matter of 1 link gets 100% of the out-flowing page rank and if I have 4 related posts at the bottom then all 5 share 20% of the page rank each.

Of course not. I don't believe it works like that and never said it does.

If you're going to get concerned about the related posts, are you also removing links out of your main navigation, sidebar, and footer? You see how far this splitting of hairs can go?

You should be concerned with everything on your site.

And yes, I do care about what happens in my footer and menu. I don't use a sidebar.

Why would I want to remove links from my main navigation and footer? Makes no sense..

 

[Darth]

All the big sites do it, so I do it. Plus from a user perspective it make sense to try and get their time on site and page views up. However you raise some good points. If users aren't clicking on those links then what's the point? What would be the best way to track it?

 

[Trump]

All the big sites do it, so I do it. Plus from a user perspective it make sense to try and get their time on site and page views up. However you raise some good points. If users aren't clicking on those links then what's the point? What would be the best way to track it?

True, that's what I was thinking as well. I did some research and most of the big ones use this type of plugin.

That's a great idea to track the clicks on those buttons. I never thought of that. Like you said, pretty pointless if nobody clicks them - then it would only be there for link juice.

Cheers for your input!

 

[Hanuman]

I don't think Google in 2021 still splits link juice based on the number of outlinks. User experience is what they probably look at.

If your reader is actively clicking on these related links to navigate more pages, and generally spending more time on your website, then it's an indication of your content being interesting and useful to the reader and so your page value goes up.

That's why I manually add these related posts. Because I think I'll do a better job at it than a plugin

 

[Googlemonster]

I've tested removing superfluous links from templates and seen a lift.