When someone finds an article on your website useful, they might mention it on their own website and add a link so their readers can visit it. That link could use your website’s name, the article’s title, or a few words describing what it’s about.
As more websites link to your content, you’ll start to see different phrases being used. These clickable words are called anchor text, and the mix of phrases across your backlinks (links from other websites to yours) is known as anchor text distribution.
But what happens when many of those links use exactly the same words? Sometimes there’s nothing unusual about it. Different people may simply choose the same description because it fits your article.
The situation changes when those words were deliberately chosen as part of an effort to push a website higher in Google search results. Think of a small business that asks several people to post recommendations using the same prepared sentence. Changing a few words afterward might make the recommendations look different, but it doesn’t change how they were arranged.
The same idea applies to backlinks. If the way those links were created is the real problem, changing their wording alone won’t necessarily fix it. The useful starting point is to understand where the links came from, whether anything actually needs correcting, and what you can reasonably do about it.
Find Out How the Repeated Links Were Created
Start by opening the pages that link to your website using the repeated phrase. A backlink report can help you find them, but the words alone won’t explain why they’re there.
Imagine you’ve published a guide about cleaning sneakers. Several independent bloggers discover it and link to it using “how to clean sneakers.” That repetition makes sense because the wording accurately describes your guide.
Now imagine that you arranged several articles on different websites and asked each publisher to use that exact phrase to help improve your rankings.
The visible links might look similar, but their histories are different.
Look at the content surrounding each link and consider whether the reference belongs in the discussion. Also, check whether the links came from independent recommendations or placements you arranged.
If you discover that the repeated wording came from choices made by unrelated writers, you may not have a problem to correct. If it came from a link-building campaign in which you controlled the wording and placement, that process deserves closer attention.
Should You Change Existing Anchor Text?
Not every repeated anchor needs editing. The decision depends partly on who controls the link and whether a change would genuinely improve it.
Links You Can Legitimately Edit
If you control a link and its wording sounds forced or describes the destination poorly, improving the language may be worthwhile.
For example, a link you placed in content you manage might say:
“Check out our best sneaker cleaning tips and best shoe cleaning advice.”
If the destination is a straightforward guide to cleaning sneakers, a simpler phrase such as “guide to cleaning sneakers” would describe it more clearly.
The improvement comes from making the link useful to readers, not from replacing one keyword with another merely to change your backlink percentages.
If the link itself was arranged primarily to manipulate rankings, however, editing the words may not resolve the underlying concern. You also need to examine whether the placement was appropriate in the first place.
Links Other Websites Chose Independently
A different situation arises when another website links to your content without your involvement.
The writer might use your brand name, a descriptive phrase, the article’s title, or even its web address. They may also choose the same wording as someone else.
There is generally no reason to contact independent publishers simply because their anchor text does not match a preferred distribution.
A backlink profile does not need every link to use different words. Similar descriptions can be perfectly reasonable when several writers are referring to the same resource.
What If Your Link-Building Practices Caused the Pattern?
If you discover that the repeated anchors resulted from instructions you gave publishers, focus on changing that practice.
For example, you may have regularly requested the same keyword whenever arranging a link to a particular page. Continuing to prescribe that wording can reproduce the pattern even after you edit some older links.
A tempting alternative is to rotate through different anchor types. One new link uses your brand name, another uses a keyword, and the next displays your URL.
That creates visible variety, but if the links are still being arranged primarily to manipulate rankings, the different wording does not make the underlying practice acceptable.
Google’s link-spam policies address links created primarily to manipulate search rankings, including certain paid placements, automated links, and optimized links in distributed content.
The more useful change is to stop treating anchor text as a predetermined requirement for every placement. Where a link is appropriate, its wording should help readers understand the destination and belong naturally in the surrounding sentence.
Sometimes that means using a brand name. Sometimes a description is clearer. And sometimes the best decision is not to add a link at all.
| Scenario | What It Means | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
| Naturally repeated anchor text | Independent websites chose similar wording to describe your page. | Leave the links alone if they are relevant and were independently placed. |
| Forced wording in a link you control | The anchor contains awkward keywords or poorly describes the destination. | Improve the wording so it reads naturally and accurately describes the page. |
| Manipulative link-building campaign | Links were arranged primarily to influence search rankings. | Stop the practice. Review the affected links and remove or appropriately qualify problematic placements where possible. |
Should You Create New Backlinks to Make the Distribution More Varied?
You might notice that one phrase accounts for a large share of your backlinks and consider creating additional links with different wording to reduce its percentage.
That approach can make a report appear more balanced, but it doesn’t address why the original links were created.
There is also no universal anchor text ratio that every website needs to achieve. A profile does not become safe simply because it contains a particular mixture of branded, descriptive, generic, and URL anchors.
This matters especially for newer websites.
If your site has only a handful of backlinks, one or two repeated phrases can represent a large percentage of the total. That alone is not a reason to manufacture more links or rush to create variation.
As a website earns links from different sources, its distribution may change naturally. Some writers will mention the brand, others will describe a particular resource, and a few may choose identical phrases.
The important thing is that legitimate differences in wording can develop from different contexts and independent editorial choices, without needing to follow a planned sequence.
When Is an Unnatural Anchor Text Distribution Actually Fixed?
There isn’t a particular percentage that tells you the work is complete.
A useful outcome is being able to identify which repeated links were independently earned, which resulted from practices you controlled, and whether those practices need to change.
For links you legitimately manage, you can correct wording that is misleading or unnecessarily forced. Where the problem concerns how links were arranged, the priority is addressing that practice rather than making the anchors look different.
Your backlink report may still contain repeated phrases afterward. That is not automatically a problem.
The goal of fixing an unnatural anchor text distribution is to address genuinely problematic links or linking practices, while allowing ordinary references from other websites to remain as their publishers intended.
