On-Page SEO Beyond Title Tags: Semantic HTML and Internal Linking Silos

Consider the difference between unstructured "div soup" and modern HTML5.

When everything is technically a container, it communicates no intent to screen readers or parsers. Semantic tags like <header>, <nav>, <main>, <article>, and <aside> communicate intent.

That semantic structure is useful beyond SEO. It can help screen readers and other technologies understand the page's regions and navigate them more effectively. Google's current AI-search guidance specifically says semantic HTML is generally a good idea because it helps other users, such as screen-reader users, parse and navigate pages—even though Google does not require perfectly semantic HTML.

This distinction matters.

Using <article> instead of <div class="article"> does not automatically increase rankings. Google explicitly says that perfect semantic HTML is not required. Its systems can understand imperfect HTML across the web.

The SEO value comes from the overall quality of the document structure and experience, including:

Semantic HTML is therefore best treated as part of sound engineering—not as an isolated ranking hack.

A useful practical model is:

• H1 = Page topic: The H1 should describe the primary subject of the page.
• H2 = Major sections: Use H2s to divide the page into significant topic areas.
• H3 = Subtopics: Use H3s for supporting concepts that belong under an H2.
• H4 = Detailed subsections: Use H4 when a subsection genuinely requires another level of organization.

For example:

Do not create headings simply because you want another keyword on the page. The hierarchy should represent the information architecture of the content.

There is no HTML heading formula that guarantees a Featured Snippet. Google says its systems determine whether a page would make a good Featured Snippet for a particular query. Website owners cannot manually mark a page as a Featured Snippet.

However, well-structured content can make the information easier to understand and extract.

If a page answers a question clearly beneath a descriptive heading, followed by a concise explanation, list, table, or process, the content is easier for both users and search systems to interpret.

There is currently no special heading structure that guarantees inclusion in AI Overviews or AI Mode.

Google states that the same foundational SEO practices remain relevant for AI features, and that pages need to be indexed and eligible to appear in normal Search with a snippet. There are no additional technical requirements specifically for AI Overviews or AI Mode.

Google's current guidance also emphasizes unique, useful, non-commodity content rather than tactics such as creating artificial “AI-friendly” formatting or excessive query variations. So instead of writing “AI Overview Optimized H2”, write a genuinely useful heading, and then answer the question accurately.

Instead of publishing 30 unrelated articles, organize them into topical groups. The central page is the hub. The supporting pages are the spokes.

The important part is not simply having categories. The pages need to link to one another where those links are genuinely useful. Google's link documentation states that links help Google find new pages and understand the relevance of pages.

Imagine your primary page is Technical SEO Guide. It could naturally link to:

• Technical SEO Audit Checklist
• Robots.txt Guide
• XML Sitemap Guide
• Canonical Tags Guide

Then those supporting pages can link back to the central guide when appropriate. The result is not just a collection of articles. It becomes an interconnected information system.

The phrase “SEO silo” can cause developers to make an architectural mistake. A silo should not mean: “Pages inside Category A are forbidden from linking to Category B.”

Real websites do not work that way. Suppose you have Technical SEO → Canonical Tags and Ecommerce SEO → Faceted Navigation.

A discussion of faceted navigation may legitimately need to reference canonicalization. Blocking that internal link because the pages belong to different categories creates a worse user experience.

• 1. Discovery: Google uses crawlable links to discover URLs. Google specifically recommends standard <a> elements with an href attribute for crawlable links.
• 2. Context: The surrounding content tells Google and users why the destination matters. Linking on "how canonical tags work" gives far more context than linking on "click here".
• 3. Navigation: A good internal-linking system lets users move naturally from broad concepts to detailed answers.
• 4. Architecture: Repeated contextual links can reveal relationships between pages, making the site structure reflect the conceptual structure of the subject.

Google's documentation is unusually direct about this. It recommends descriptive, reasonably concise, relevant anchor text and specifically gives generic phrases such as “click here” and “read more” as examples of poor anchor text.

Compare:

With:

The second link tells the user what they are about to open. It also gives Google contextual information about the destination.

Descriptive does not mean repetitive. Suppose ten pages all link to your Google Ads Audit Checklist. Using the exact anchor Google Ads Audit Checklist every single time is unnecessary.

Natural variations can include:

• Google Ads audit
• PPC audit checklist
• campaign audit guide
• audit your Google Ads account
• our paid search audit process

The surrounding sentence matters too. Google explicitly recommends writing naturally and resisting the temptation to cram every related keyword into anchor text.

• Check 1: Is the destination crawlable? Use <a href="/destination-page/">Descriptive anchor text</a> rather than relying entirely on JavaScript click events.
• Check 2: Does the page have internal inbound links? Find at least one logical contextual route from an existing page.
• Check 3: Does it link to useful supporting pages? Do not force links merely to increase the number of internal links.
• Check 4: Is the anchor descriptive? Avoid "Click here", "Read more", "Learn more", "This article", "Website".
• Check 5: Are important links visible in the rendered page? If your navigation and content links are injected by JavaScript, inspect the rendered HTML.
• Check 6: Are you creating link clusters or link spam? Twenty links pointing to the same destination inside one short paragraph do not create a better architecture. Google explicitly says there is no magical ideal number of links per page and recommends using links where they help users.

You can turn this entire philosophy into a technical audit. Start by crawling the site and exporting URLs, Status codes, H1s, Titles, Inbound/Outbound links, Anchor text, and Click depth.

Then identify four common problems:

1. Orphan pages: Pages with no meaningful internal inbound links are difficult to discover through the site's normal navigation architecture.
2. Important pages buried too deeply: A page may technically be crawlable but require users and crawlers to traverse an unnecessarily complicated path.
3. Generic anchor text: Find repeated anchors such as "Read more" and determine whether they can be replaced with descriptive wording.
4. Broken internal links: A page linking to a 404 is not helping the user reach the intended destination. Fix the link, redirect the old URL where appropriate, or remove the reference.

A strong implementation combines all the pieces. None of these components should be viewed as an isolated “Google hack.” They work together to create a website that is easier to navigate, easier to understand, and easier to crawl.

That is also why internal linking should happen during development—not as an SEO task added six months after the website is launched.