Is un-searched content worth writing?
-
Hi,
Is every post you write on your site is SERPs worthy?
I'll give an example -
We often cover industry related news items. It is written very well with personal opinions, comments and detailed explanations. Our readers find it interesting, "like" and "plus" it. However, these items will never appear in the SERPs simply because they won't be searched.Needless to say that these are not ever green pieces. If by chance it lands a subject that may be searched in the future, usually it won't appear because it means that the item was also covered by major sites like CNN, Forbes, Bloomberg etc.
Is it worth out time to keep "investing" in these types of articles?
Thanks
-
If there is a need to write these from a customer's point of view, no matter how they are going to find the content, then the posts should be written. You don't need to cultivate everything on your site for search - there should be a reason behind why you create and publish content, however, and EGOL is right that a content plan is an important start if you feel that you're writing / publishing "in the dark" with no structure.
Short updates might be very useful for your current readership, or for historical purposes, so that future readers can go back and research what constituted a "record price" in 2014. They may never arrive at that content through a search engine, but it's useful to them and they find it regardless.
-
Thank you all for the answers!
I like the dramatic approach EGOL presented.
It is true that when I'm writing these articles I'm not doing other things.
However, these articles "land" on my lap since it is constantly happening, it is news worthy, it is related and readers like it.If we are talking about the jewelry industry, an example would be covering auctions at Christie's and Sotheby's where they constantly sell special items at record prices. This however won't be searched (I also know this from experience).
True that articles such as "hot to guides" and educational material are probably better - but it is not instead of those.
It does however take great effort (time and money) to do those and the question is if it is worth it... -
In my opinion you should write for the person going to your site rather than the search engines, they will be the ones using your products and services. You can tailor a lot of "inner pages" towards key phrase in your niche.
-
Write for the user, not for ranking. If the users like, and share, and spend time navigating through your content, search engines will take notice.
Easiest way? Look at what is one the site, look at what the competition is writing, and how they rank. Look back at yours and compare.
"Is every post you write on your site is SERPs worthy?"
This is only something you and your traffic can answer. Reading through what you have, does it address all aspects of the point you are trying to make, or give all information on a topic you are trying to cover? What is it that makes people like or share what you have written?
"You need a content development plan."
-
STOP.
You need a content development plan.
You are under attack and you have limited ammunition and only moments before you are overrun. Don't waste your precious ammunition and time shooting into the air or into the ground. Be sure that you are hitting the enemy!
Content that is never searched can be important, but only when it serves a purpose for someone who is important to your business and you guide them to it on obvious paths.
-
In my opinion most definitely. I think I remember reading that up to 80% of searched per month have never been recorded before. This means that there's nothing to say your content won't be searched for in future. I'd also say that by creating this content you are building an authoritative presence that can help in with your internal link structure to enhance rankings for other pages that may contain more popular search term and aslo link juice to any other sites you may own.
-
If visitors are engaged with your content, they will come back. That's a good reason to write it.
How do you know that they never will be searched? Much of the content I generated focus on "extremely" niche topics (long tail kw's) and we do receive visitors for these topics. Also, generating original content adds credibility to your brand and site. As you know, it's not all about competitive keywords.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Website Redesign - Duplicate Content?
I hired a company to redesign our website.there are many pages like the example below that we are downsizing content by 80%.(believe me, not my decision)Current page: https://servicechampions.com/air-conditioning/New page (on test server):https://servicechampions.mymwpdesign.com/air-conditioning/My question to you is, that 80% of content that i am losing in the redesign, can i republish it as a blog?I know that google has it indexed. The old page has been live for 5 years, but now 80% of it will no longer be live. so can it be a blog and gain new (keep) seo value?What should i do with the 80% of content i am losing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CamiloSC0 -
Tabbed Content Revisited
Hi-diddly-ho SEO gurus, quick question. I just saw this article and wanted to get thoughts from the people here. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-says-now-ok-put-content-behind-tabs/178020/ I am constantly at war with our UX guy on this subject because he believes, along with our CEO, that tabbed and accordion style information is better from THE UX standpoint. Less clutter on a page but with information still readily available. I am not here to argue that point but was wondering if you agree with the article posted here. I had to inform them their roll needed to be slowed until I could get something a little more concrete on the matter.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | spadedesign0 -
Scraped content ranking above the original source content in Google.
I need insights on how “scraped” content (exact copy-pasted version) rank above the original content in Google. 4 original, in-depth articles published by my client (an online publisher) are republished by another company (which happens to be briefly mentioned in all four of those articles). We reckon the articles were re-published at least a day or two after the original articles were published (exact gap is not known). We find that all four of the “copied” articles rank at the top of Google search results whereas the original content i.e. my client website does not show up in the even in the top 50 or 60 results. We have looked at numerous factors such as Domain authority, Page authority, in-bound links to both the original source as well as the URLs of the copied pages, social metrics etc. All of the metrics, as shown by tools like Moz, are better for the source website than for the re-publisher. We have also compared results in different geographies to see if any geographical bias was affecting results, reason being our client’s website is hosted in the UK and the ‘re-publisher’ is from another country--- but we found the same results. We are also not aware of any manual actions taken against our client website (at least based on messages on Search Console). Any other factors that can explain this serious anomaly--- which seems to be a disincentive for somebody creating highly relevant original content. We recognize that our client has the option to submit a ‘Scraper Content’ form to Google--- but we are less keen to go down that route and more keen to understand why this problem could arise in the first place. Please suggest.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ontarget-media0 -
Does Google see this as duplicate content?
I'm working on a site that has too many pages in Google's index as shown in a simple count via a site search (example): site:http://www.mozquestionexample.com I ended up getting a full list of these pages and it shows pages that have been supposedly excluded from the index via GWT url parameters and/or canonicalization For instance, the list of indexed pages shows: 1. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff 2. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff?page=2 3. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?page=3 4. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?mq_source=q-and-a 5. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?type=productss&sort=1date Example #1 above is the one true page for search and the one that all the canonicals reference. Examples #2 and #3 shouldn't be in the index because the canonical points to url #1. Example #4 shouldn't be in the index, because it's just a source code that, again doesn't change the page and the canonical points to #1. Example #5 shouldn't be in the index because it's excluded in parameters as not affecting page content and the canonical is in place. Should I worry about these multiple urls for the same page and if so, what should I do about it? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Best practice for expandable content
We are in the middle of having new pages added to our website. On our website we will have a information section containing various details about a product, this information will be several paragraphs long. we were wanting to show the first paragraph and have a read more button to show the rest of the content that is hidden. Whats googles view on this, is this bad for seo?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexogilvie0 -
Do search results differ greatly when you search on mobile?
If you have a site with responsive design, is Google likely to look upon you more favourably and dramatically change rankings?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlueLinkERP0 -
Differentiating Content
I have a piece of content (that is similar) that legitimately shows up on two different sites. I would like both to link, but it seems as if they are "flip flopping" in ranking. Sometimes one shows up, sometimes another. What's the best way to differentiate a piece of content like this? Does it mean rewriting one entirely? http://www.simplifiedbuilding.com/solutions/ada-handrail/ http://simplifiedsafety.com/solutions/ada-handrail/ I want to the Simplified Building one to be found first if I had a preference.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CPollock0 -
Local Searches done from outside of local area better than searches from within local area
Here's a strange one: I am working on a site for a local business and targeting local searches. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Various keyword position tools show the site ranking very well for searches like "Anytown Widget Store". Doing the same Google search from a browser in Anytown, the site shows up much lower. So I tried changing the location in Google to other cities, using a variety of browsers and it comes up much higher out of town than in town. I have seen plenty of geographic discrepancies before, but usually they went the other way - searches from the actual local area did slightly better than the same searches done elsewhere, which would make sense. Any thoughts on why this would happen?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nick_Ker0