Konu kümeleri ve merkezleri (Sıfır Güven, IAM, Bulut Güvenliği, Algılama, DevSecOps) ile bir siber güvenlik içerik stratejisi oluşturuyorum. Her bir sütunun altında 20-30 makaleyi eşleştirdim, ancak deneyimli ekiplerin dahili bağlantıyı geniş ölçekte gerçekte nasıl yapılandırdığını anlamaya çalışıyorum.
Daha önce küme tabanlı içerik yönettiyseniz dahili bağlantı mimarinizi nasıl tasarlıyorsunuz?
Katı kurallara mı uyuyorsunuz (merkez → küme → çapraz bağlantılar) yoksa fırsatlara göre organik olarak büyümesine izin mi veriyorsunuz?
Genel tavsiyeler değil, gerçek iş akışları arıyorum.
Hey u/imhritik welcome to r/SEO
I actually know this space personally very well – I cut my teeth on cloud & cybersecurity. I used to be a software engineer at Dell.
>If you’ve managed cluster-based content before, how do you design your internal-link architecture?
Do you follow strict rules (hub → cluster → cross-links), or do you let it grow organically based on opportunities?
What I’m seeing reading between the lines here is that your thinking might be skewed from reading the “Google is trying to understand your content” philosophy on the web.
Often people try to explain SEO from an external view or try to translate PageRank SEO into a content teams/content architecture PoV. And it seems that many people think that Google works this way too.
The problem is that you need to understand PageRank and specifically how Topical Authority works.
You can’t reverse engineer an observational construct into a workab le list of tactics without understanding how topical authority works.
Firstly – and foremostly – Google doesnt care about different “page” types.
Google’s algorithms process every page through the same algorithms albeit it with different IFTTT statements depending on the document. HTML documents kind of get split in two – either Googlbebot has to render it chromium if its JS or it just processes it as text.
But a blog post, a pillar page, a service page, a money page – these are all treated as web pages
While its very neat to say your Blog post should link to your service pages or A to C etc – this would need to assume that the search engine thinks this way too. The reason for internal linking is either to send the user to different steps in their journey because no journey goes A->B->C->D – users will jump all over the place and if they can’t do so on your site, they’ll jump around the web. From an SEO pov internal linking is done to transfer authority that one page has to another.
Lets say you’ve a blog post or PR or Service page that gets a link from Microsoft or Dell or Salesforce or some other partner eco-system, you should want to send the user to a few narrow choices. One – you might share them to an overview piece – how does your technology work? Whats the architecture? Or maybe you want to link them to a buy button because they could have come here to buy – sop you send them to a pricing page or a deployment or download page. Or maybe they need to talk to a Sales Expert/Engineer first?
You probably dont want to send them to a privacy page or a Support Center page. And thats how Google wnats navigation to work: you prioriitsing and limiting the steps.
In turn – the more internal links you have per page – the less each one sends out.
So in PageRank Math – the incoming link from your partner is expressed as PR / RelAuth – 85% = tbprY (PR passed.)
If you have 3 internal links – say one to a “Talk to an Expert” and one to an architecture overview and a third to your “What is Zero Trust for VDI” for example, then each page will get tbprY / tcoef / Rev /3 . So the amount of traffic that page gets is the traffic co-efficient and then its further dived by 3 and relevancy between each page/
So if you link from a page about Zero Trust in VDI to a page you call “Talk to an expert” – very little is going to flow because of relevance to “Talk, to, Experty”
Similarly – there’s not a lot of value in linking to pages that already rank.
So you really have to work out why you’re linking, hat to, how you’re linking and what chance that page has of ranking