Anchor text in the AI era: do exact-match anchors still matter?

Anchor text is the clickable words in a link. This post answers a question we hear more and more: with AI search in the mix, do exact-match anchors like "best payroll software" still matter, and how should you write and check anchors today?

What Google says anchor text is for

Google's guidance on links is short and specific. It defines anchor text as "the visible text of a link" and says it "tells people and Google something about the page you're linking to." It also gives the test it uses:

"Good anchor text is descriptive, reasonably concise, and relevant to the page that it's on and to the page it links to."

Google's guide (updated December 2025) adds a few practical points that are easy to miss:

• Read the anchor on its own. Google's tip is to read only the anchor text, out of context. If you can't tell what the page is about, the anchor is too vague.
• Don't cram in keywords. Google says to "resist the urge to cram every keyword that's related to the page that you're linking to," and reminds readers that keyword stuffing is a violation of its spam policies.
• The sentence matters. In Google's words, "the words before and after links matter, so pay attention to the sentence as a whole."
• Don't chain links together. Links stacked next to each other are harder to tell apart, and each loses the words around it.
• Image links count too. For an image that's a link, Google uses the alt text as the anchor text.

Google's own examples of weak anchors are "click here," "read more," "website" and "article." It also shows a "weirdly long" anchor, a whole sentence turned into a link.

Anchors, by Google's own examples

Good

• Descriptive and reasonably concise
• Relevant to the page it sits on
• Relevant to the page it links to
• Written as part of a natural sentence

Weak

• Too generic, like click here or read more
• Weirdly long, a whole sentence as the link
• Cramming in every related keyword
• Links chained next to each other

Our guide to rel attributes covers nofollow, sponsored and ugc, and the internal linking guide shows good anchors inside your own site.

Why exact-match anchors became the old risk

An exact-match anchor is one that uses the exact keyword you want to rank for. For years, many SEOs built links that way because it seemed to work. Then Google started acting on it. Here are the steps that matter.

24 April 2012. Google announced "an important algorithm change targeted at webspam" that would "decrease rankings for sites that we believe are violating Google's existing quality guidelines." It named "keyword stuffing" and "link schemes" as examples of webspam, and said the change affected about 3.1% of queries in English. The change became known as Penguin.

23 September 2016. Penguin became part of Google's core algorithm. Google said it now ran in real time, and that it "devalues spam by adjusting ranking based on spam signals, rather than affecting ranking of the whole site." That's a calmer picture than the penalties people remember from 2012: the spammy signals are discounted instead of the whole site being demoted.

25 May 2017. Google's Webspam team published a reminder about links in large-scale article campaigns. It said guest posts are fine when they "inform users, educate another site's audience or bring awareness to your cause or company," but not when "the main intent is to build links in a large-scale way back to the author's site." Its first example of a warning sign, when taken to an extreme, was "stuffing keyword-rich links to your site in your articles." It also said that when a site publishes articles with spammy links, this "may change Google's perception of the quality of the site and could affect its ranking."

Today. Google's spam policies (updated August 2026) list, as an example of link spam, "advertorials or native advertising where payment is received for articles that include links that pass ranking credit, or links with optimized anchor text in articles, guest posts, or press releases distributed on other sites." The policy's example is a three-sentence paragraph about weddings with five keyword links in it: "wedding rings," "wedding," "best ring," "buy flowers" and "wedding dress."

The same policy treats links that are bought or sold to pass ranking signals as link spam, unless the link is marked rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow". Some publishers also add a visible label to paid placements. That's how Google describes it. Our guides to buying backlinks and the history of netlinking go deeper.

Our reading of these four Google statements: the problem isn't anchor text on its own. It's optimized anchors on links that exist mainly to pass ranking credit, usually placed in bulk.

Our view: the old risk was never "exact-match anchors exist." Natural links sometimes use the exact name of a page or product, because that's what people call it. The risk was a profile where paid, swapped or mass-placed links all use the same commercial phrase. That pattern looks engineered, and Google's own policy describes it as a problem.

Do exact-match anchors still help rankings?

The honest answer is that nobody outside Google can say how much weight an anchor carries today. Here's what we can check.

Google's position. At PubCon on 21 September 2023, Google's Gary Illyes said links are important "but I think people overestimate their importance," and that they haven't been in the top three ranking factors "for some time." Google says it uses links as a signal. It doesn't publish how much anchor text matters inside that signal.

Outside data. The best public study we found on anchors is from Ahrefs. It was last updated in April 2020, so it's old and it predates AI search. The authors looked at the anchors pointing to 384,614 pages that ranked in the top 20 for 19,840 keywords, all with 2,000 to 5,000 searches a month. They found a "relatively weak" correlation between the share of exact-match anchors and rankings: a Spearman correlation of 0.1436 on average (0.1869 median). The authors listed their own flaw: they couldn't tell which keyword each page was really targeting, and each page ranks for many keywords. Correlation also can't show whether anchors helped pages rank or whether pages that already ranked attracted more of them. So the data doesn't prove exact-match anchors are harmful, and it doesn't prove they help much. It says nothing about a "safe" amount.

The no-safe-ratio rule. You'll see articles that give a target percentage for exact-match anchors, or a neat pie chart of branded, partial and generic anchors. We couldn't find a source for any such number, Google included. Treat a ratio as someone's rule of thumb, not a rule. Our guide to common link building mistakes says the same.

Our view: the useful question isn't "what percentage?" but "would this anchor look natural to the person reading the sentence, and does it describe the page?" If the answer is yes for every link, you won't be near the old problem. If a link's anchor only makes sense to a search engine, change it or don't take the link.

Internal anchors are a different job

Everything above is mostly about links from other sites, where you often don't control the words. With internal links you write both ends.

Google says that "paying more attention to the anchor text used for internal links can help both people and Google make sense of your site more easily and find other pages on your site." It also says there's "no magical ideal number of links a given page should contain."

So internal anchors are the easiest place to do the right thing. Name the destination ("our guide to rel attributes," not "here"), write each sentence naturally instead of hunting for variety, and point the link at the page that best answers the reader's question, which isn't always your homepage.

What we know, and don't know, about AI tools and anchor text

This is where a lot of confident claims appear. Here's what's on the record, as of October 2026.

What Google says about its own AI features. Google's guide to optimizing for generative AI features (updated July 2026) says its AI features "are rooted in our core Search ranking and quality systems." They retrieve pages from the Search index and show links to supporting pages. It also says, "You don't need to write in a specific way just for generative AI search." Nothing in the guide mentions anchor text.

What one large study measured. In December 2025, Ahrefs analyzed 75,000 brands (domains with a Domain Rating above 40) across millions of AI responses. It reported correlations between "branded anchors" and AI visibility of 0.527 for AI Overviews, 0.511 for ChatGPT and 0.628 for AI Mode. "Branded anchors" means link text that includes the brand name. Ahrefs called these "deliberate endorsements" where someone chose to link to a brand by name. It also warned that "correlation isn't causation."

Three things that study doesn't show:

1. It didn't test exact-match keyword anchors. It measured brand-name anchors, so it says nothing about "best payroll software."
2. It can't separate cause from effect. Well-known brands are linked by name more often, and are also mentioned more often in AI answers. Both can come from being well known.
3. It doesn't say how any AI tool reads a link. It counts anchors. It doesn't observe what a model does with them.

What nobody has published. In our research we found no documentation from an AI search provider that says how its tools treat anchor text or the words around a link. If you see an article that explains the mechanism, ask for its source.

Our view: the sensible bet is small and cheap. A link sits inside a sentence on a real page. If that sentence is clear and the anchor describes the destination, readers benefit, Google's guidance is satisfied, and whatever AI tools read from the page gets clean text. That's the whole case. We wouldn't build a campaign around AI and anchors, because there's nothing solid to build on. For the wider picture on how AI tools choose sources, see our sibling guide on how AI assistants pick sources and our look at the future of link building.

How to write anchors for a pitch

When you pitch a link, or write a guest post or a niche edit, you usually influence the anchor. This is where you can do the most good. The example below is made up.

Say you run a payroll tool, and you've published a checklist on multi-state payroll compliance. A blogger writes about hiring remote staff. Here are three ways a link to your checklist could read:

• Exact-match, forced: "If you need the best payroll software, check this site." The anchor is the keyword you want to rank for, dropped into a sentence.
• Generic: "We covered this before. Click here for more." The reader can't tell what's behind it.
• Descriptive, in context: "If you hire in more than one state, this multi-state payroll compliance checklist lists the filings to track." The anchor names the page. The words around it set the expectation. A reader knows what they'll get.

The third version isn't "diversified" on purpose. It's just what a good writer would do.

Before you send an anchor suggestion

• Names the pageSomeone could guess the destination from the anchor alone
• Fits the sentenceIt reads naturally, with no forced keyword
• Short enoughA phrase, not a whole sentence
• Not repeated everywhereDifferent pages and sentences call for different words
• Honest about paymentIf the placement is paid, the link is marked or labeled

Three habits help:

1. Offer a page and a reason, not a phrase. Tell the publisher which page fits their article and why it helps their reader, then let them write the sentence. Our guide to reaching out to bloggers covers the approach.
2. Use the page or brand name when it fits. A link that says the name of your tool or the title of your guide is accurate, and it's what people usually write.
3. Read the whole sentence before it's published. On our guest posting and niche edits work, you approve the content first. That's the moment to catch an anchor that reads wrong, and it costs nothing to change before the link exists.

If a placement is paid, the publisher may mark the link rel="sponsored" or add a label. When we place links, we tell you before you approve a site whether a placement will carry a label, and you decide whether to go ahead.

How to review anchors in a link report

Sooner or later you'll want to look at the anchors pointing at your site: after a campaign, or when someone sends you a report. You can start with a free tool from Google.

Search Console's Links report. Under "External links," the "Top linking text" table shows the most common link text from outside your site. Google's help page says it's useful for confirming "that the link text is what you expect, and not spammy text," and that "other sites are describing your site accurately." Know its limits, though. It shows a sample, not every link, and tables stop at 1,000 rows. Google also combines duplicates as a case-insensitive exact match, so "Acme Payroll" and "ACME PAYROLL" count as one. Links with no text, such as image links, show as "(empty)."

A spreadsheet. For a campaign report, keep these columns: source URL, target page, anchor text, the sentence around it, any rel attribute, and how the link was placed (organic, outreach or paid).

Then read the list the way a stranger would:

1. Read each anchor out of context. Does it say what the destination is? A few generic anchors are normal. A whole column of them suggests the placements weren't thought through.
2. Look for repeats. The same commercial phrase again and again, especially on paid or swapped placements, is the pattern Google's policy describes. A few repeats aren't proof of anything. A repeat across dozens of unrelated sites is worth a conversation.
3. Match anchor to target. Does "payroll compliance checklist" point to the checklist, or to the homepage?
4. Read the sentence. Is it natural and on topic, or is it one of several links crammed together?
5. Check how paid links are marked. Google's guidance is to mark them rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow". Some publishers do, some use a visible label, and some do neither.
6. Fix the few that read badly. Ask the publisher to edit an anchor or mark a paid link. Don't start a mass removal because a column looks uneven.

1. 1ExportPull the links from Search Console or your campaign report
2. 2Read each anchorOut of context, on its own
3. 3Spot repeatsThe same commercial phrase on many paid or swapped links
4. 4Read the sentenceNatural, on topic, not chained to other links
5. 5Act on the odd onesAsk the publisher to edit, mark or fix a link

There's no pass mark here. You're reading the way an editor would. For a broader routine, see the 20-minute self-audit in our link building mistakes guide.

What to do

• Write anchors for the reader. Descriptive, short and relevant to both pages: Google's own standard. Treat the whole sentence as part of the anchor.
• Avoid forced exact-match anchors on paid, swapped or mass-placed links. That's the pattern Google's spam policy describes.
• Ignore anyone who sells a safe percentage. No source we found publishes one.
• Don't build a plan around AI and anchors. The only published figures are correlations for brand-name anchors, and no AI provider documents how its tools read anchor text.
• Offer a page and a reason, and let publishers write the words. Approve the final sentence before it goes live.
• Review anchors like an editor. Read them out of context, look for repeats, fix the few that read badly. Remember the Search Console report is a sample.

To see how brand-name mentions sit alongside links, read our guide to brand mentions and backlinks. Co-citation and co-occurrence covers the idea that words near a link carry meaning.

Sources

• Google Search Central: Link best practices for Google (updated 10 December 2025)
• Google Search Central: Spam policies for Google web search (updated 28 August 2026)
• Google Search Central blog: Another step to reward high-quality sites (24 April 2012)
• Google Search Central blog: Penguin is now part of our core algorithm (23 September 2016)
• Google Search Central blog: A reminder about links in large-scale article campaigns (25 May 2017)
• Google Search Central: Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search (updated 10 July 2026)
• Google Search Console Help: Links report (no date shown)
• Search Engine Roundtable: Google says links are no longer a top three ranking factor (PubCon, 21 September 2023; reported 24 September 2023)
• Ahrefs: Anchor text, a data-driven guide (384,614 web pages studied) (updated 3 April 2020)
• Ahrefs: Brand visibility in AI systems (12 December 2025; 75,000 brands)

Checked on 6 October 2026.