The playbook
Internal Linking: Review Process
A useful internal linking review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: source URL, target URL, anchor, placement. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
An installation guide can link to a relevant maintenance guide when the reader reaches ongoing care. A service page can link to a project example beside its proof section. Keep the destination and anchor specific enough that the visitor can predict what will appear after clicking.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Find important pages with few contextual links | Is the supporting source URL current and traceable? |
| Choose relevant source pages with useful surrounding text | Does target URL support the decision being made? |
| Use descriptive anchors that explain the destination | Can the next owner verify placement? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to adding large unrelated link blocks to every article. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, place a small number of contextual links where they help a decision. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or query record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to important orphan pages remaining using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Keep page purpose visible throughout the work. A technically valid page can still fail to answer the reader’s question. Separate access and discovery problems from content problems so that the assigned action matches the cause.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now