Link position on the page: the reasonable surfer and first link priority
Where a link sits on a page changes its likely value. Google's reasonable surfer patents describe weighting links by how likely a reader is to click them, so links in the main text count for more than footer links. First link priority is an old test result that Google has never confirmed.
In short
- Google's reasonable surfer patent, reported as filed in 2004 and granted in 2010, describes giving links different weights based on how likely a reader is to click them.
- The features the patent is reported to list include position on the page, font size and colour, anchor text length, link type and whether the target is on the same host.
- Google's spam policies name widely distributed links in the footers or templates of various sites as link spam.
- First link priority comes from SEO tests dating from about 2008, and Google's John Mueller is reported to have said in 2018 that the behaviour is not defined and can change.
- The direction is well supported and the size of the effect is unknown, so no one can say a body link is worth a fixed multiple of a footer link.
Yes. The position of a link on the page changes how much it is likely to count. Links placed inside the main text, where a reader would plausibly click them, are the ones search engines have most reason to trust. Links in footers, sidebars and repeated templates are the ones most likely to be discounted. The direction is well supported by Google’s patents and its spam policy. The size of the effect is not public.
A second, older idea often travels with this one: first link priority. It has much weaker support, and this lesson treats the two separately.
From the random surfer to the reasonable surfer
The original PageRank model imagined a random surfer who clicks any link on a page with equal probability. Under that model a page splits its value evenly among all its links, whether a link is in the opening paragraph or in the small print at the bottom.
The reasonable surfer model drops that assumption. It is set out in a Google patent that is reported to have been filed in 2004 and granted in 2010, with a later updated version. As summarised in a 2010 analysis on the SEO by the Sea blog, the patent describes giving each link a weight based on the probability that a reader would actually click it. A link few people would click passes little. A link many would click passes more.
A patent shows what a company thought of and protected. It does not prove what runs in production today. What makes this one credible is that other evidence agrees with it.
What the patent says makes a link more likely to be clicked
The patent is reported to list features of the link itself, of the page it is on and of the page it points to.
| Feature | What tends to count for more | What tends to count for less |
|---|---|---|
| Position | Main content, higher on the page | Footer, sidebar, boilerplate |
| Font size and colour | Visible, normal or prominent text | Tiny or low-contrast text |
| Anchor text | Descriptive words, sensible length | Empty or generic wording |
| Link type | Text link in a sentence | Image or banner styled as an advert |
| Target host | Link to a different site, in context | Repeated navigation links to the same host |
| Topic | Anchor and target match the page’s subject | Off-topic link on an unrelated page |
| Reader behaviour | Links that users actually click | Links nobody clicks |
The features in the first column follow that reported list. The other two columns are our reading of how each feature would change the chance of a click, not the patent’s wording. Read the right-hand column as “more likely to be discounted”, not as “worth nothing”. The patent describes weights, and no source gives their values.
The supporting evidence
Google’s spam policy. The policy names “widely distributed links in the footers or templates of various sites” as an example of link spam. That is the reasonable surfer logic stated as a rule: a link stamped into a template on every page is not an editorial choice.
The 2024 leak. Google’s leaked Content Warehouse documentation stores a font size value for each anchor and fields holding the text to the left and right of a link, according to iPullRank’s and Hobo’s 2024 analyses. The fields exist. Whether and how they are weighted is unknown. Our lesson on what the leak documents explains that limit.
Together these make the direction safe to rely on. Confidence in any specific number is low. Anyone who tells you a body link is worth five footer links has invented the figure.
What this means when you place a link
When you write or approve a placement, treat position as part of the specification. The following is working practice from placement briefs, not a Google rule.
- Ask for the link in the main body, ideally in the first half of the article.
- Put it inside a sentence that a reader would have a reason to click, with the brand or topic named nearby.
- Do not accept a link in the author bio only. A bio is repeated boilerplate at the edge of the page.
- Avoid a “resources” list at the end where your link sits among several unrelated ones.
- Refuse sitewide placements in a footer, sidebar or blogroll. One contextual link on one relevant page is the better buy.
How to write a placement brief turns these into a template. The same logic explains two market patterns. A niche edit is sold on the promise of a contextual link inside existing body text, so check that the inserted sentence reads as part of the article and is not bolted onto the last paragraph. And in guest posting, hosts who allow a link only in the bio are offering the weakest position on the page.
If an agency places links for you, ask to see where on the page each link will sit before you approve it. The link building services comparison lists what to ask a vendor.
First link priority: what it claims
First link priority is the claim that when a page links to the same URL more than once, Google counts only the anchor text of the first link and ignores the rest. It came out of SEO experiments from about 2008 onward. The classic case is a site whose navigation links to a page with the anchor “Home” or “Products”, and whose body text links to the same page later with a descriptive anchor. Under the theory, only the navigation anchor counts.
What Google has said about it
Google has never confirmed it. John Mueller is reported to have said in 2018, and to have repeated since, that the behaviour is not defined, that it can change over time and that site owners should not rely on it.
The 2024 leak adds one small detail. It contains a field described as anchors from the same source to the same target, in iPullRank’s 2024 analysis. That shows Google records repeated links between two pages. It does not show which anchor wins, and analysts read it mainly as a sign of diminishing returns from repeated links.
Confidence that strict first link priority applies today is low.
How to handle repeated links
The safe approach costs nothing:
- Make the first link to a target inside the main content the descriptive one.
- Do not restructure a site’s navigation to chase the theory.
- For a backlink, do not ask a publisher for two links to the same URL in one article. The second adds little, and it looks like what it is.
- For your own site, write anchor text that describes the target wherever the link appears.
What position cannot fix
Position is one feature among several. A perfectly placed link on a site with no readers, no rankings and a history of selling links is still a weak link. Check the site first with the method in how to vet a publisher, then worry about where on the page the link sits.
Where to go next
How search engines evaluate links puts position next to authority, relevance and attributes. Terms such as reasonable surfer and sitewide link are in the glossary.
Common questions
Does it matter where on the page a backlink is placed?
Yes, in direction. The patents and Google's own policy both point to links in the main content counting for more than links in footers, sidebars and templates. No public source gives the size of the difference.
What is the reasonable surfer model?
It is the idea, set out in a Google patent, that a link should pass value in proportion to how likely a real reader is to click it. It replaced the older random surfer assumption that every link on a page is equally likely to be followed.
What is first link priority?
It is the claim that when one page links to the same URL twice, Google counts only the anchor text of the first link. It comes from old SEO experiments. Google has not confirmed it.
Are footer and sidebar links worthless?
Not necessarily, but they are the placements most likely to be discounted. Sitewide footer links repeated across many sites are named in Google's link spam policy.
Is a link in an author bio worth less than a link in the article?
Probably. An author bio is repeated boilerplate at the edge of the page, which fits the kind of link the reasonable surfer model gives less weight. This is an inference, not a published rule.
