Money-anchor on tier 1 vs. tier 2: where exact-match risk actually lives
Tiered link architectures raise an underexamined question: at which tier should exact-match anchors sit, if anywhere? The answer reframes where over-optimization risk concentrates.
Tier 1 links point directly at your money page. Anchors here are the ones Google most directly attributes to that URL, so exact-match concentration here is the highest-risk position.
Tier 2 links point at your tier-1 sources. Their anchors are, in principle, several steps removed from your target's evaluation. Some practitioners reason that exact-match can be pushed to tier 2 to relieve tier-1 ratio pressure.
On one hand, this is a plausible risk-relocation tactic — diluting the directly-attributed layer. On the other, it assumes Google does not propagate anchor signal up the chain, which is unproven and arguably naive given how link graphs are traversed.
Limitation: the entire premise rests on tier-2 anchors not influencing tier-1 source quality in a way that reflects back. No public study confirms the isolation that tiered strategies assume.
My cautious read: tiering may reduce direct attribution, but treating tier 2 as a consequence-free dumping ground for exact-match is a bet, not a method.
Open question: is there any evidence anchor signal attenuates predictably with each link-graph hop, or does it decay irregularly?
Anchor Theory
@AnchorTheory
Money-anchor on tier 1 vs. tier 2: where exact-match risk actually lives
Этот пост опубликован в Telegram-канале Anchor Theory. Подписаться можно по ссылке: @AnchorTheory.