SEO content optimisation

Kick-off and defining the scope consists of collecting information about the site, the content goals, the page priorities, and the editorial and industry constraints. At this stage I clarify whether the goal is, for example, to gain traffic for specific keywords, and which URLs matter most to you. I also establish the constraints that may affect what changes to the content are possible (e.g. subject-matter or branding requirements). As a result, the further work on the audit and the optimisation plan is based on real conditions and a real order of actions.

As part of these arrangements we also define how changes will be implemented and approved, which directly affects the format of the materials handed over and the scope of checks after publication. The implementation model may assume that I implement the changes directly on the site, or that I hand over ready-made materials for the client’s team to implement. This distinction clarifies responsibility for publication and determines what post-implementation QA will look like. Only after these arrangements does the review of content and visibility begin as part of the audit.

From the outset, the scope of work is planned with dependencies and constraints in mind: the number of URLs, the content type (blog/offer/category), the editing options on the site and the starting state of the content. The availability of experts on the client’s side for any content verification also has an effect. If the site suffers from duplication or scattered topics, this may increase the amount of tidying-up work in subsequent stages. These factors are taken into account in the prioritisation and order of actions right from the start.

A content audit and visibility audit in the context of SEO consists of assessing the current pages in terms of how well they match user intent, their structure and the quality of the content. During the review I identify, among other things, duplication, keyword cannibalisation and gaps in topic coverage that can make clear query targeting harder. The analysis also includes pointing out the pages that need improving, merging or expanding within the existing site architecture. On this basis I work out where the problem is the content itself and where it is the way the content is scattered across many URLs.

The result of the audit is a list of URLs with priorities, prepared on the basis of intent match, the potential of the topic and the quality problems detected on the page. The list is not merely an inventory of pages: it includes the reasoning for why a given page goes into the work plan and in what order it is worth tackling. This prioritisation makes it possible to plan the work in stages, instead of making parallel changes in many places without a coherent logic. The audit results are the starting point for further decisions about expanding, merging or retargeting content.

• Assessment of how well the content matches intent, and of the quality and structure of the pages
• Identification of duplication, keyword cannibalisation and topic gaps
• Indication of pages to improve, merge or expand
• List of URLs to optimise, with reasoning and order of work

The content optimisation plan sets the order of actions and defines the guidelines according to which the changes for priority URLs will be prepared. At this stage I turn the priority list into specific editorial tasks, so that the work is carried out in a consistent order and in line with the agreed content goal. The rules developed cover, among other things, the structure, headings, sections, style and trust elements that are to be included in the content. As a result, every page is optimised to a uniform standard rather than as a single, isolated update.

A key element of the plan is the content briefs prepared for each page covered by the work. The brief sets out the topic and intent, the proposed heading structure, the scope of information and the user questions the content is meant to answer. It also includes proposals for supporting elements (e.g. FAQ, tables, graphics) and internal linking recommendations within related content. In the same step, a decision is made on whether a given topic is better served by optimising an existing page, creating new content or merging several pages.

• Content guidelines: structure, headings, sections, style, trust elements
• Work plan for priority URLs based on the order in the priority list
• Content briefs: topic and intent, structure, scope of information, user questions, proposed supporting elements, internal linking
• The “new content vs optimising existing content” decision (including any content merging)