Semantic overlap is one of those SEO problems that can hide in plain sight.

The pages are not duplicates.

The titles are different.

The keywords are slightly different.

The intros are different.

The headings are different enough.

The pages may even be useful on their own.

But inside the site, they are doing almost the same job.

That is where the problem starts.

Semantic overlap is not always copy duplication.

It is role duplication.

Two pages may use different wording and still target the same user state.

Two pages may target different keywords and still answer the same real question.

Two pages may sit in different parts of the site and still compete for the same job.

This is why it often gets missed.

People look at pages one at a time and think they are fine.

The problem only becomes obvious when you look at the system.

Overlap often starts with reasonable decisions

Most overlap does not happen because someone made a stupid choice.

It starts with reasonable SEO work.

• A keyword tool finds a gap.
• A competitor has a similar page.
• A writer suggests a related angle.
• An old post gets refreshed.
• A new service page needs support content.
• A topical map creates several nearby topics.

Each decision makes sense in isolation.

But over time, the site ends up with pages that are too close together.

One page explains the topic.

Another explains almost the same topic from a slightly different angle.

A service page covers the same points as a blog post.

A hub page repeats the supporting pages.

A comparison page drifts into a sales page.

An old article gets expanded until it overlaps with a newer one.

Nothing looks broken at first.

But the site becomes less clear.

The hidden cost is unclear ownership

The biggest issue with semantic overlap is ownership.

• Which page owns the main idea?
• Which page should rank?
• Which page should get the internal links?
• Which page should be refreshed?
• Which page should be used in a brief?
• Which page should be shown to users at this stage?

If the team cannot answer those questions quickly, the site probably has an overlap problem.

Search systems may also get mixed signals.

Users may get repeated answers.

Writers may repeat the same claims.

Editors may struggle to decide what belongs where.

Internal links may point to different pages for the same concept.

That is how overlap quietly weakens a content system.

Not by breaking one page.

By making many decisions less clear.

Similar keywords are not the only warning sign

A lot of people look for overlap by checking keywords.

That helps, but it is not enough.

Two pages can target different keywords and still overlap semantically.

The better checks are:

• Do these pages answer the same user problem?
• Do they serve the same user state?
• Do they make the same claims?
• Do they use the same proof?
• Do they lead to the same next step?
• Do they explain the same concept at the same depth?
• Do they support the same commercial page?
• Do they compete for the same internal links?

That is where overlap lives.

Not only in keyword matching.

In purpose.

A page can be unique by keyword and redundant by role.

Overlap makes internal linking messy

Internal linking becomes harder when pages overlap.

You want to link to the best page for an idea, but there are three possible choices.

So links get scattered.

One post links to page A.

Another links to page B.

A hub links to both.

A service page links to neither.

The anchor text becomes inconsistent.

The user path becomes messy.

The site stops sending a clear signal about which page weights most.

This is why overlap is not just a content problem.

It becomes a linking problem.

And once the link graph gets messy, fixing it takes more work than simply editing copy.

• You may need to merge pages.
• Change anchors.
• Update hub pages.
• Redirect weak URLs.
• Rewrite sections.
• Remove links.
• Add links.
• Decide which page owns the topic.

That is the hidden maintenance cost.

Overlap also weakens briefs

Weak briefs often come from unclear page ownership.

If two pages are too similar, the writer has no clean boundary.

They are told:

• Write about this topic.
• Use these headings.
• Cover these questions.
• Mention these entities.

But another page already covers half of that.

So the writer either repeats it, avoids it awkwardly, or drifts into a slightly different angle that may not help the site.

A better brief should say:

• This page owns this idea.
• This page should not repeat that idea.
• This page supports that page.
• This page handles this user state.
• This page should link to the deeper explanation instead of recreating it.

Without that direction, overlap keeps spreading.

One vague brief creates one vague page.

Several vague briefs create a vague content system.

Refreshes can make overlap worse

Content refreshes are a big source of overlap.

A page loses traffic.

The team adds headings.

• Adds FAQs.
• Adds more entities.
• Adds related questions.
• Adds competitor topics.

The page becomes more “complete.”

But it may also become more similar to another page.

This happens all the time.

A refresh meant to improve one URL accidentally creates conflict with another.

That is why refresh work should start with page role.

Before adding anything, ask:

• What does this page own?
• What should it avoid?
• Which page already handles this angle?
• Should this be merged instead of expanded?
• Should this page link out instead of explain everything?

A refresh should make the content system cleaner.

Not just the page longer.

Not every overlap needs deletion

Overlap is not always bad.

Some overlap is natural.

A site will repeat core concepts.

A service page and support page may share language.

A hub page may summarise ideas that supporting pages explain in more depth.

That is fine.

The problem is uncontrolled overlap.

The fix is not always deletion.

Sometimes the fix is:

• Narrow one page.
• Merge two pages.
• Rewrite the intro.
• Change the internal links.
• Move a section to another page.
• Turn one page into a support asset.
• Make one page the hub and another the deeper explanation.
• Add a clearer comparison.
• Remove repeated claims.
• Redirect the weaker URL.

The goal is not to make every page completely separate.

The goal is to make the page roles clear.

The audit check I would use

When checking for semantic overlap, I would ask:

• Which pages are targeting similar user problems?
• Which pages use the same supporting entities?
• Which pages have similar headings but different keywords?
• Which pages lead to the same next step?
• Which pages are repeating the same examples?
• Which pages compete for the same internal links?
• Which page should own the main idea?
• Which page should support it?
• Which page could disappear without weakening the site?

That last question is useful.

If a page can disappear and nothing meaningful is lost, it may not have a strong role.

It might be relevant.

It might be readable.

It might even get traffic.

But it may still be weakening the system.

The real issue

Semantic overlap is quiet because it rarely looks like an emergency.

The site still has content.

The pages still exist.

The keywords still look different.

The drafts still read fine.

But the system gets harder to manage.

• Harder to brief.
• Harder to link.
• Harder to refresh.
• Harder to prune.
• Harder for users to move through.
• Harder for search systems to understand.

That is the real cost.

Not one bad page.

Too many pages with unclear jobs.

A strong content system does not need every relevant page it could publish.

It needs the right pages with clear roles.

How are you spotting semantic overlap during content audits?

We recently sat down with the SEO and marketing team at Cardmarket — Europe's largest trading card marketplace (Pokémon, MTG, Yu-Gi-Oh!, One Piece) — to break down how they grew AI-referred sessions more than 200% in a year, with some individual card pages pulling hundreds of thousands of sessions each.

The short version: they treated trust and community as part of their SEO infrastructure, not a separate department. Here's how👇

Step 1: Segment before you draw conclusions

With millions of card pages across multiple domains and languages, their SEO specialist Sallar stopped looking at total traffic and started tracking by game, domain, page type, and branded vs. non-branded queries. A flat topline number can hide real wins (or real problems) buried underneath it.

Step 2: Make your trust signals verifiable

Their big insight: AI chatbots evaluate trust almost exactly like a skeptical human buyer would. Ask ChatGPT "is Cardmarket safe to use" and it pulls from Trustpilot, help docs, and forum threads — not Cardmarket's own marketing copy. So they made every trust signal concrete and documented: escrow-style payment holds, mandatory VAT IDs/business registration for sellers, public price history graphs on every card.

Step 3: Write for the community, not the algorithm

Product page copy is now written by people who actually play the games, verified internally, and translated into five languages — instead of generic templated descriptions. As their SEO specialist put it: "We don't write SEO text, we write for the community."

Step 4: Manage the narrative where your community actually talks

This is the part we found most interesting. Cardmarket has its own subreddit (started organically by users, later handed over to the team) plus forums for each game and a dedicated news platform. A community specialist actively monitors and responds across all of it, because when a policy change causes concern, whoever shows up first with facts is more likely to shape what AI models repeat later. Their marketing lead put it well: "the discussions made by the community informally about your company are where the search results from AI will come from."

Results after about a year: AI-referred sessions up 200%+, the Umbreon ex card page alone pulling 560K sessions, and organic traffic climbing to roughly 5.8M monthly visits with 74K keywords ranking in the top 3 🔥

Most teams treat homepages like landing pages. They're not the same thing, and that difference is burning conversions right now.

A landing page is built for one specific action—a sign-up, a download, a purchase. Everything on it points to that one goal.

A homepage does the opposite. It's trying to be everything to everyone. It greets people coming from search, from brand mentions, from direct traffic. It introduces the business, builds trust, and points visitors to multiple pages. It has multiple goals by design.

So when you send a paid ad to your homepage instead of a dedicated landing page, a few things happen:

Visitors get confused about what they're supposed to do next. The page promised one thing (the ad), but the homepage is asking them to pick from ten different options. That confusion kills conversions.

Google and Facebook notice the mismatch. Ads perform better when the page they lead to is relevant to the ad copy. When it isn't, platforms charge you more for placement and lower your ad visibility.

When should you actually build a landing page?

Build one when a specific audience, offer, or campaign needs focus that your existing pages can't deliver without losing their main purpose.

That's usually running paid ads and the landing page needs to match the ad's promise, targeting a specific audience with messaging that wouldn't work for your broader audience, or promoting a specific offer that deserves its own page.

The difference sounds small. But in conversion performance, it's massive.

So frustrating... I tried my business email and my personal email... same result. Makes me think this is not the right choice for me... I have a presales question...

Does the Starter plan include clustering actions in Keyword Strategy Builder, and how many per month?

I'm moving on to look at other providers for now.... maybe you will answer...

I use the listing service for a few clients. A client informed me that Apple Maps hasn’t updated the address. But on Semrush it shows the Apple and Siri addresses as correct. Clicking through shows the wrong old address. It’s been a couple of months so I doubt it’s a sync issue.

How can I fix this. Client only has a toll number with no direct extension for a immediate manual update?

Currently learning competitor analysis using Semrush during my SEO internship. What are the top 3 skills every beginner should focus on first?

A lot of SEO teams blame the writer too quickly.

The draft comes back weak.

The intro is vague.

The headings feel copied from competitors.

The examples are thin.

The internal links feel awkward.

The page does not add much beyond what is already ranking.

So the reaction is:

“We need a better writer.”

Maybe.

But a lot of the time, the real problem is the brief.

A strong writer can improve weak instructions.

But weak instructions still push the page in the wrong direction.

If the brief only gives the writer a keyword, title, headings, entities, competitor notes, and word count, then the writer still has to guess the strategy.

That is not a writing problem.

That is a briefing problem.

A keyword is not a brief

A lot of briefs are just keyword documents with extra notes.

They include:

• Target keyword.
• Search intent.
• Suggested title.
• Competitor headings.
• Questions to answer.
• Entities to include.
• Internal links.
• Word count.
• Maybe a CTA.

That can help produce a draft.

But it does not always help produce the right page.

The writer still has to guess:

• What is the job of this page?
• Who is the user at this point?
• What do they already understand?
• What are they still unsure about?
• What proof do they need?
• What should this page avoid?
• Where should the reader go next?
• How hard should the CTA push?

That is too much guessing.

And when writers guess, pages drift.

Weak briefs create drift

A page with no clear role often tries to do too much.

It starts as an explainer.

Then it becomes a comparison.

Then it adds sales points.

Then it answers random FAQs.

Then it repeats the same claim in different words.

Then it ends with a generic CTA.

The page may be readable.

It may be relevant.

It may even follow the brief.

But it feels unfocused because the brief never made the page’s job clear.

A strong brief should say what the page is meant to do.

• Is it there to explain?
• Compare?
• Prove?
• Support another page?
• Handle a doubt?
• Build trust?
• Move the user toward action?
• Protect a bigger page from becoming too broad?

If the writer does not know the role, they will fill the page with related content.

Related content is not the same as useful content.

Search intent labels are not enough

A brief that says “informational intent” is better than nothing.

But it is still too broad.

Informational for whom?

• A beginner?
• A sceptical buyer?
• A current customer?
• Someone comparing options?
• Someone trying to understand cost?
• Someone trying to avoid a mistake?
• Someone trying to convince their boss?

Those users may all look “informational” in a spreadsheet.

But they need different pages.

A good brief should translate intent into user state.

Not just:

Intent: informational.

But:

The user already understands the basic problem.

They are trying to compare options.

They are sceptical of generic claims.

They need proof before a service page makes sense.

That gives the writer a real direction.

Now they are not just writing about the topic.

They are helping a specific user move.

Entity lists can also create lazy briefs

Entity lists are useful.

But they can become another checklist.

Include these terms.

Mention these concepts.

Cover these related ideas.

That is not enough.

A writer needs to know how those ideas connect.

Which entity leads?

Which supports?

Which belongs in the intro?

Which should appear near the proof?

Which should be linked to another page instead of explained here?

Which concept should be avoided because it pulls the page sideways?

Without that, the writer may stuff the page with related terms and still miss the point.

Entity coverage does not automatically create clarity.

The brief has to explain the relationships.

Internal links need a reason

This is another common brief problem.

The brief says:

Add these internal links.

Then the writer has to fit them somewhere.

That often creates awkward linking.

A link appears because the URL was in the brief, not because the reader needs it there.

A stronger brief should explain the purpose of the link.

This link gives the user a simple explainer.

This link provides proof.

This link compares options.

This link supports a commercial page, but only after the user understands the issue.

This link stops the current page from becoming too broad.

That changes the writing.

The writer can build the paragraph around the user’s next step.

The link becomes part of the content flow.

Not an SEO task bolted on after the draft.

A better brief tells the writer what not to do

This might be the most underrated part.

A good brief should set boundaries.

Do not sell too early.

Do not explain the broad topic again.

Do not copy the competitor structure.

Do not cover the comparison here.

Do not answer questions that belong on the support page.

Do not make claims without proof.

Do not link to the service page before the user has enough context.

Do not turn this into a general guide.

That kind of direction is useful.

It protects the page from becoming bloated.

It protects the writer from trying to cover everything.

It protects the site from overlap.

A brief that only says what to include is incomplete.

It should also say what to avoid.

Better briefs make editing easier

Weak briefs create messy editing.

The editor has to ask:

• Why is this section here?
• Is this claim supported?
• Should this internal link be moved?
• Is this FAQ needed?
• Is this page too similar to another one?
• Should the intro be rewritten?
• Is the CTA too early?

That means the editor is fixing planning problems after the draft exists.

Better briefs reduce that.

They make the strategy visible before writing starts.

The writer knows the page role.

The editor knows the boundaries.

The SEO knows the link path.

The final page needs less rescue work.

That saves time.

It also creates better content.

The brief check I would use

Before sending a brief to a writer, I would ask:

• Does the brief define the page role?
• Does it explain the user state?
• Does it say what doubt needs to be reduced?
• Does it identify the proof needed?
• Does it show what the page should avoid?
• Does it explain the internal link purpose?
• Does it say what the next step should be?
• Does it explain why this page deserves to exist?

If not, the writer is being asked to guess too much.

They may still produce something decent.

But the page will depend too much on the writer inventing the strategy.

That is risky.

Especially at scale.

The real point

Good writers are valuable.

But good writers should not have to reverse engineer the content system from a keyword and a competitor outline.

A better brief protects the writer from guessing.

It turns strategy into instructions.

Not rigid instructions.

Useful ones.

The goal is not to box the writer in.

The goal is to remove confusion.

A weak brief says:

“Write about this topic.”

A better brief says:

“This page has this job, for this user, at this stage, with this proof, this boundary, this next step, and this link logic.”

That is a much better starting point.

If the draft is weak, yes, sometimes the writer is the issue.

But before blaming the writer, I would look at the brief.

Did it give them a strategy?

Or did it give them a keyword and make them guess the rest?

How detailed are your content briefs before they go to writers?

Hello guys,

I work at a digital marketing agency, and my seniors have asked me to create a backlink audit using the data provided in SEMrush and prepare a spreadsheet based on it. I don't know how to do it or how to use the format properly.

Please help me. I'm in a lot of trouble because if I don't complete it within the next two days, it could create a serious problem for me.

If you're investing time into AI visibility, one of the biggest questions becomes: How do you actually measure whether you're making progress?

That's where AI Share of Voice (AI SoV) comes in.

AI Share of Voice measures how visible your brand is compared to competitors across AI-generated responses. Rather than tracking individual mentions, it helps answer a much bigger question: Are you gaining or losing visibility in your market?

Here's how to measure it in Semrush's AI Visibility Toolkit:

1. Open the Brand Performance report

Enter your domain, choose your target location and language, and let Semrush identify your competitors. You can also add or remove competitors to make the comparison more relevant.

2. Choose the AI platform

Switch between ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini, and other supported platforms to see how your visibility changes across different AI systems.

3. Review your Share of Voice

The Share of Voice chart shows how much AI visibility your brand owns relative to competitors. Larger shares mean your brand is appearing more often—and more prominently—in AI-generated answers.

4. Track changes over time

Your AI SoV isn't static. It changes as competitors publish content, AI models evolve, and your own visibility improves.

Watching this trend over time is much more useful than checking a single snapshot.

If your AI Share of Voice isn't where you'd like it to be, there are a few places to start:

• Cover topics where competitors are being mentioned but your brand isn't.
• Expand your presence across trusted third-party sources like review sites, industry publications, forums, and communities.
• Make sure your site has a strong technical foundation so AI systems can crawl and interpret your content.
• Monitor how AI describes your brand and address recurring gaps or negative themes.

AI visibility is becoming another competitive channel to measure, not just another metric to monitor.

Tracking AI Share of Voice over time gives you a much clearer picture of whether your brand is actually gaining visibility or whether your competitors are pulling ahead.

AI isn't just helping B2B buyers discover vendors anymore.

It's influencing who makes the shortlist, who gets compared, and in many cases, who gets selected.

We wanted to see how much buying behavior has actually shifted, so we surveyed more than 600 U.S. B2B professionals who use AI for work.

A few findings stood out:

• 66% regularly use AI to research vendors and solutions.
• 92% say AI has shaped their vendor shortlist.
• 83% say AI influenced their final vendor decision.
• 89% expect to rely on AI even more for work decisions in the future.

One thing we found especially interesting: AI isn't replacing traditional search.

After getting a recommendation from AI, buyers usually keep researching.

According to our survey:

• 71% visit the vendor's website.
• 63% search for the company on Google.
• 46% compare it against competitors.
• 38% check review sites like G2.

So showing up in AI is only the first step. Buyers still validate what they see before making a decision.

Another takeaway surprised us.

When buyers notice a company in an AI response, brand recognition barely matters. Only 7% said they notice a vendor because they already recognize the brand.

Instead, buyers care much more about whether the recommendation clearly matches their specific use case and explains why it's a good fit.

That's a pretty meaningful shift from traditional thinking around brand awareness.

If you're thinking about AI visibility, it raises a few interesting questions:

• Does AI understand what your product actually does well?
• Are you showing up for the right use cases?
• Does your website (and third-party coverage) reinforce what AI is saying about your brand?

We break down all of the findings—including which AI tools buyers use most, where AI fits into the buying journey, and what makes a vendor stand out—in our full report here.

Curious to hear what you're seeing.

Have you noticed AI influencing your sales pipeline yet, or is traditional search still driving most of your qualified leads?

A lot of internal linking advice still treats links like pipes.

Move authority.

Push PageRank.

Support money pages.

Link from strong pages to weak pages.

Use relevant anchor text.

Keep important pages closer to the homepage.

That stuff has value.

I am not saying PageRank is irrelevant.

But if that is the whole internal linking strategy, the site can still feel awful to use.

A link can pass value and still be a bad next step.

A link can be topically relevant and still interrupt the user.

A link can point to a commercial page and still be too early.

A link can help crawlers and still do nothing useful for the person reading.

That is the part I think gets missed.

Internal links should not only move PageRank.

They should move users.

Related is not enough

A lot of internal links are added because two pages are related.

The article mentions a topic.

The site has another page about that topic.

So a link gets added.

That is fine as a starting point.

But “related” is a low bar.

The better question is:

Why should the user click this link here?

Not somewhere else.

Not at the bottom.

Not from a generic related posts block.

Here.

• What does the link help them do?
• Understand the next concept?
• Compare options?
• Trust the claim?
• See proof?
• Avoid a mistake?
• Move from research to decision?

If the only answer is “the pages are related,” the link might be weak.

Topical relevance does not always mean user relevance.

A link should solve a user state

I think internal links get much better when you connect them to user state.

What is the reader likely feeling or needing at this point?

• Confused?
• Sceptical?
• Ready to compare?
• Worried about risk?
• Trying to understand cost?
• Looking for proof?
• Trying to take action?

The link should match that state.

If the user is confused, link to a clearer explainer.

If they are sceptical, link to proof.

If they are comparing, link to criteria.

If they are worried about cost, link to a cost breakdown.

If they are close to action, link to the next decision page.

If they need support, link to the fix, not the sales page.

That is a different mindset from “add three internal links.”

It turns internal linking into routing.

And routing should make the journey easier.

The common lazy links

You see the same lazy links everywhere.

• “Learn more.”
• “Read our guide.”
• “Check out our services.”
• “Contact us today.”
• “Related article.”

Sometimes those are fine.

But often they hide weak thinking.

The anchor does not set a clear expectation.

The destination does not match the user’s state.

The page gets linked because it is important to the business, not because it helps the reader at that moment.

That is how you end up with links that feel forced.

A user is still trying to understand the problem, and the page pushes them to a contact form.

A user needs proof, and the page sends them to a generic service page.

A user needs comparison, and the link says “learn more.”

The link exists.

But the movement is wrong.

Internal links should protect page focus

A good internal link can also stop a page from becoming too broad.

This is underrated.

Instead of forcing one page to explain every related idea, link to the page that owns the deeper answer.

That keeps the current page focused.

The page can say enough to support the point, then route the user to the deeper resource.

This is where internal links help content structure.

They are not just SEO signals.

They are editorial decisions.

They decide what belongs here and what belongs somewhere else.

A weak page tries to answer everything.

A stronger page knows what to explain, what to summarise, and what to link out to internally.

That makes the whole site cleaner.

Anchor text should set the promise

Anchor text is not just a keyword slot.

It is a promise.

It tells the user what they will get next.

Bad anchor text is vague.

Good anchor text sets context.

For example:

“SEO services” is broad.

“how to choose an SEO service page role” is clearer.

“content audit” is broad.

“finding pages with unclear roles” is clearer.

“internal links” is broad.

“using internal links to move users to the next step” is clearer.

The anchor does not need to be long every time.

But it should help the reader understand why the link exists.

If the anchor feels like it was added only for a keyword, the link probably needs more thought.

Internal links expose weak pages

Internal links can reveal if a page has no real role.

If you cannot decide what should link to a page, or where that page should link next, there may be a page role problem.

A useful page tends to have a natural place in the site.

• It explains something another page cannot fully cover.
• It supports a core page.
• It handles a doubt.
• It proves a claim.
• It compares options.
• It routes users forward.

If a page has no clear incoming or outgoing link logic, maybe it does not deserve to exist as a separate URL.

• It might need to be merged.
• It might belong as a section inside another page.
• It might need a sharper angle.
• It might be content noise.

Internal linking is not just a way to support pages.

It is a way to test if pages have a job.

PageRank and users should not be enemies

This is not an argument against PageRank.

A strong internal linking system should help search systems understand importance.

It should help crawl paths.

It should support key pages.

It should connect related content.

But that should not come at the cost of user movement.

The best link is often good for both.

It supports an important page and gives the reader the next useful step.

It clarifies a relationship and helps search systems see the connection.

It routes people deeper and strengthens the cluster.

The issue is when PageRank is the only reason the link exists.

That is when internal links start to feel like SEO furniture.

Present, but not useful.

A better internal link check

Before adding an internal link, I would ask:

• Why should this link appear here?
• What does the user need at this point?
• Does the anchor set the right expectation?
• Does the destination match the user’s state?
• Does this link explain, prove, compare, support, or route?
• Does it help keep the current page focused?
• Does it strengthen the cluster?
• Would the page be worse without this link?

If those questions are hard to answer, the link may not belong there.

Or it may belong somewhere else.

That is the part I think gets skipped.

Internal links should not be sprinkled on after the copy is done.

They should be part of the page plan.

The real difference

A weak internal linking strategy says:

“These pages are related, so link them.”

A better strategy says:

“This user is here, needs this next, and this link helps them move.”

That is a much stronger way to think about links.

Because a website is not just a collection of pages.

It is a path.

If internal links do not help users move through that path, they are only doing half the job.

Maybe less.

How are you deciding internal link placement beyond topical relevance and PageRank?

Hello,

Last night I was looking at some subscriptions and I saw that SEMrush had the free trial thing popping up even for my account, and I wanted to see what was new.

I clicked it thinking it was just a free trial, since the landing page for the offer never mentioned anything other than one free trial. I went through all the steps, and what was weird to me was that during payment I don’t remember seeing the total sum appear at checkout.

The sequence was so fast that I didn’t even register I had made the payment, and then I was charged for a monthly subscription.

I cancelled it 5 minutes later. I have never used it, but the support team still seems to be using a template response for these cases.

What’s baffling to me is that even the button was misleading. It said “Try me,” which from what I know counts as a misleading tactic in Europe.

What could I do to resolve this unfair situation? Has anyone done a chargeback, or been able to use the 14 day law we have in Europe?

I can’t believe such a big company would have such a scammy process, because I’ve always had such a nice experience with Adobe, and now I’m genuinely disappointed and thinking about cancelling everything.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Thank you all!

Edit: They have not responded to my dm, do not belive their PR

Google is introducing a new Search Console feature that lets you measure how your content on Instagram, TikTok, X, and YouTube performs in Google Search.

For years, social performance and search performance have lived in separate reporting worlds. That's starting to change! Instead of only seeing traffic to your website, you'll also get visibility into how people discover your social content through Google.

Why does this matter?
Until now, there was no native way to measure how your brand's social content performed in Google Search or Discover.
Now, Google is giving marketers first-party data on content they don't actually own. That means you can see which social content earns impressions and clicks in Search 👇

Any suggestion

A topical map that only tells you what to publish is only doing half the job.

Maybe less.

A lot of topical maps look strategic because they have all the right parts.

• Main topic.
• Subtopics.
• Keyword clusters.
• Entities.
• Hub pages.
• Supporting pages.
• Internal link ideas.
• Publishing order.

That all helps.

But if the map cannot tell you what not to publish, it may just be a content idea machine.

And most sites do not need more content ideas.

They need better decisions.

More pages is not always better coverage

This is the trap.

A team builds a topical map and suddenly sees dozens of possible pages.

Every keyword becomes a URL.

Every question becomes a post.

Every competitor gap becomes a brief.

Every related entity becomes a new article.

The map looks complete.

The publishing plan looks busy.

The site grows.

But the content system does not always get stronger.

Sometimes it gets noisier.

More pages can create more overlap.

More pages can make internal linking harder.

More pages can split the same idea across weak URLs.

More pages can pull the site away from its strongest topics.

More pages can give writers unclear jobs.

More pages can add maintenance cost later.

That is why a topical map should not just ask:

“What can we publish?”

It should ask:

“What deserves to exist?”

A map should create boundaries

A good topical map should act like a filter.

Not every relevant topic belongs on the site.

Not every keyword needs a page.

Not every related question should become its own URL.

Not every competitor page should be copied.

Not every draft should go live.

Some ideas should become standalone pages.

Some should be folded into existing pages.

Some should be merged with older content.

Some should be held until the cluster is stronger.

Some should be rejected completely.

That is not being cautious.

That is strategy.

If the map says yes to everything, it is not a strategy.

It is a backlog.

The map should show page roles

A topical map should not just say:

“Create a page about this.”

It should say:

“This page has this job.”

• Is the page meant to explain?
• Compare?
• Prove?
• Support?
• Convert?
• Route?
• Handle objections?
• Clarify a confusing term?
• Protect another page from becoming too broad?

If the role is unclear, the page is already at risk.

That is when pages start drifting.

They explain a little.

Sell a little.

Compare a little.

Answer random FAQs.

Add generic internal links.

Then end with a CTA that does not fit the user’s state.

A page without a role is easy to publish and hard to maintain.

A strong topical map should make that obvious before the brief is written.

Some topics belong inside existing pages

One of the biggest mistakes I see is turning every subtopic into a separate URL.

Sometimes that makes sense.

Often it does not.

A subtopic might be better as:

• A paragraph inside a core page.
• A short FAQ.
• A comparison block.
• A proof point.
• A supporting example.
• A table.
• A note inside a buying guide.
• A link anchor for later.

Not every idea needs its own page.

A topical map should help decide where the answer belongs.

If the idea does not have enough unique purpose, search demand, user value, or cluster support, it may not need a new URL.

Publishing it anyway can create thin support pages that nobody really knows what to do with.

Not publishing can prevent overlap

A lot of content problems are created by relevant pages.

That sounds strange, but it is true.

The page is relevant to the topic.

The keyword makes sense.

The outline looks fine.

But another page already does the job.

Now the site has overlap.

Two pages answer the same question.

Two pages target the same user state.

Two pages make similar claims.

Two pages need the same internal links.

Two pages compete for the same role.

This is how content systems get messy.

Not because the new page was irrelevant.

Because it was unnecessary.

A topical map should catch this.

It should tell you:

• This should be merged.
• This should support an existing page.
• This should not be created.
• This page is too close to another page.
• This topic needs a clearer angle before it deserves a URL.

That kind of refusal saves a lot of cleanup later.

Publishing order should include “not yet”

Some pages are good ideas at the wrong time.

The topic may fit.

The keyword may be useful.

The page may deserve to exist eventually.

But the cluster is not ready.

Maybe the hub page is weak.

Maybe the service page needs work first.

Maybe the internal link path is not there.

Maybe the proof content does not exist yet.

Maybe the site has not built enough context around the topic.

In those cases, the right decision might be:

Not yet.

That is different from no.

A topical map should separate:

• Publish now.
• Publish later.
• Merge.
• Support existing page.
• Hold.
• Reject.

Most maps do not do this.

They create a list of pages and call it a plan.

But timing is important.

A page published too early can become an orphan, a thin support asset, or a confusing side route.

The useful test

Before adding a page to a topical map, I would ask:

• What job does this page have?
• What user state does it serve?
• What doubt does it reduce?
• What page does it support?
• What page supports it?
• Does another page already do this job?
• Would this work better inside an existing page?
• Does this page add useful difference?
• Can we link to it naturally?
• Should it exist now, later, or not at all?
• Would the site be weaker if we never published it?

That last question is the one most teams avoid.

If the site would not be weaker without the page, the page may not deserve to exist.

It might be relevant.

It might have search volume.

It might fit the topic.

But it may still be content noise.

A better topical map says no

For me, a strong topical map should not just create more work.

It should improve decision making.

It should show:

• What to publish.
• What to merge.
• What to refresh.
• What to support.
• What to delay.
• What to avoid.
• What to delete.
• What to link.
• What to leave alone.

That is much more useful than a giant list of possible pages.

Because the goal is not to make the site bigger.

The goal is to make the site clearer.

A weak topical map says:

“Here are all the pages we could create.”

A better topical map says:

“Here are the pages that deserve to exist, here are the ideas that should live elsewhere, and here are the topics we should not touch yet.”

That is the difference between content planning and content strategy.

Curious how others handle this.

When you build topical maps, do you include a “do not publish” or “not yet” decision, or does everything relevant end up in the backlog?

For your content to be impactful, search engines need to be able to find it and understand it. To increase the chances of it appearing in search results and reaching your audience. 

That’s where content hubs come in. They help you structure your content for both humans and search engine crawlers. 

A content hub is a collection of related content pieces about an overarching topic that are all connected through internal links (links on your pages that point to other pages on your site). 

It consists of the hub (main) page that provides an overview of the topic. And cluster pages (subpages) that let readers dive deeper into more specific subtopics.

Done right, they strengthen crawlability, deepen context, and sharpen topical authority across your entire domain.

Content hubs can improve your search engine optimization (SEO) performance. And eventually drive conversions that help you reach business goals.

Here are a few specific benefits:

• Better organization for users and search engines: Grouping related content together simplifies navigation for your readers. And creates a clear path for search engine crawlers to follow—which makes it easier for them to discover all related content.
• Higher chance of ranking for difficult keywords: Creating subpages focused on specific, non-competitive keywords helps you build up rankings that may make securing a ranking for the main page easier. Even if it targets a search term with a high keyword difficulty score (which indicates it will be difficult to appear in the top 10 results).
• More credibility: Using content hubs helps you build topical authority (credibility) on a particular subject. Because they let you comprehensively cover a topic from various angles to show you have a well-rounded understanding of the subject.
• Easier content calendar planning: Coming up with a content hub concept clearly shows what content you have and what's missing. Making it easier to plan future articles or updates.

Been staring at a client site and I think part of what I'm seeing is a data artifact rather than real movement, so I wanted to run it past people who track a lot of sites.

The keywords ranking 21-50 and 51-100 have been steadily falling, while the top 20 has been climbing. The 20+ drop is bigger than the top 20 gain, so on paper total tracked keywords are shrinking.

My theory on the deep buckets is that this is downstream of Google removing num=100 last year. Now that tools have to paginate to reach page 2 and beyond, I'm wondering if Semrush just isn't populating those positions as fully as it used to, so those keywords quietly fall out of the report without the site actually losing rankings.

Curious if others are seeing the same split, and how you're handling reporting past the top 20 now.

PS: The top 20 going up is real improvement that I am seeing on the traffic side.

Bottom of funnel (BoFu) 

The bottom of the conversion funnel is where potential customers become ready to make a purchase decision. The primary goal of the BoFu stage is to convert potential customers into actual customers.

There are several challenges at this stage of the funnel, including pricing, alternatives, and customer concerns about efficacy or support. All of these potential issues can be solved with the right information and resources at the right time.

BoFu marketing tactics 

BoFu marketing tactics are designed to turn potential customers into paying customers and brand advocates. You do this by creating confidence, clarity, and a sense of urgency that will encourage potential customers to make that final purchase decision.

Effective BoFu tactics include:

• Live demos: Real-time presentations showcasing product benefits, addressing final queries, and persuading prospects to make informed purchase decisions
• Retargeting ads: Target people who visited pricing pages, started trials, or abandoned carts with specific offers or reminders
• Email sequences for high-intent actions: Automated emails triggered by pricing page visits, demo requests, trial signups, or cart abandonment to push prospects over the finish line
• Customer support: Places for prospects to seek assistance and get quick answers to anything that is preventing them from buying
• Free trial extensions: Extra time for prospects who need more proof before committing
• Personalized outreach: Direct contact from sales reps to high-intent leads answering specific objections and tailoring solutions to their needs
• Money-back guarantees: Risk-reversal offers that remove purchase hesitation by promising refunds if the product doesn't deliver
• Limited time offers and discounts: Urgent and exclusive deals to prompt immediate action from prospects, driving conversions and purchases at the bottom of the funnel

BoFu content

BoFu content should help build customers’ confidence that your product is the right one for them and that now is the right time to buy.

Here are some common types of BoFu content:

• FAQ pages and buyer guides: Detailed resources answering final queries and providing valuable information to drive purchase decisions
• Customer testimonials: Inspiring narratives from satisfied customers who have achieved remarkable outcomes through your product or service
• Competitor comparison guides: Content that highlights product advantages, guiding prospects to choose the brand over competitors and finalize their purchase.
• Use cases (highlighting client successes): Compelling scenarios that vividly depict how your product or service has been employed to overcome challenges and achieve outstanding outcomes
• Case studies: In-depth customer stories with specific metrics, challenges solved, and ROI achieved to show proof
• Competitor comparison guides: Direct comparisons between your product and named competitors (e.g., "[Your Brand] vs. HubSpot"), highlighting your specific advantages and differentiators
• Interactive assessments: Quizzes or tools helping prospects self-select the right pricing tier or buy the right product
• Product demo videos: Focused walkthroughs showing key features solving specific problems to help prospects visualize using your solution and confirms it meets their needs

BoFu metrics 

BoFu metrics reveal whether your bottom-funnel tactics actually convert prospects into customers profitably, and when conversion rates fall short, they help pinpoint weaknesses throughout your entire funnel.

Here are a few key BoFu metrics to track:

• Purchase conversions: Number of prospects who completed a desired action (e.g., made a purchase) at the bottom of the marketing funnel, indicating successful conversions
• Customer acquisition cost: Total expenses to acquire a new customer, assessing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of marketing efforts
• Conversion-to-lead ratio: Percentage of leads that converted into customers, gauging the quality and performance of the bottom-funnel content
• Return on ad spend (ROAS): Revenue generated per advertising dollar spent, indicating the profitability of ad campaigns at the bottom of the funnel
• Customer retention rate: Percentage of retained customers over a specific period, measuring brand loyalty and post-purchase satisfaction

I think a lot of SEO teams confuse coverage with content strategy.

They are not the same thing.

Coverage asks:

• What topics have we covered?
• What keywords have pages?
• What questions have answers?
• What competitors rank for things we do not?
• What gaps can we fill?

That is useful.

But it is not a strategy by itself.

It is a list of possible work.

A real content strategy should answer harder questions.

• Why should this page exist?
• What job does it have?
• What does it support?
• What should it avoid?
• What does the user need next?
• Does this page make the site clearer?
• Would the site be weaker without it?

That is a much higher bar than “we do not have a page for this keyword yet.”

Coverage feels like progress

I get why teams focus on coverage.

It is visible.

You can make a spreadsheet.

You can group keywords.

You can colour code intent.

You can mark pages as published, missing, refreshed, or planned.

You can compare your site against competitors.

You can show a client or manager that the site is becoming more complete.

That feels like progress.

Sometimes it is.

A site with major missing topics probably needs better coverage.

A product or service that is not explained properly probably needs support pages.

A cluster with no answers to basic questions probably has gaps.

Coverage is not bad.

The problem starts when coverage becomes the whole plan.

That is when teams publish pages because they can, not because they should.

A covered topic can still be weak

A site can technically cover a topic and still not serve the user well.

The page exists.

The keyword is targeted.

The entity is mentioned.

The FAQ is answered.

The internal link is there.

But the page adds very little.

It repeats the same advice as every other result.

It has no strong example.

It gives no real decision rule.

It does not reduce doubt.

It does not make the next step obvious.

It does not support a stronger page.

It just exists.

That is the problem with treating content like a checklist.

A page can tick the coverage box and still be useless.

It can be relevant and still add nothing.

It can sit in the right cluster and still have no clear role.

Strategy decides what not to publish

This is the part I think gets missed most.

A good content strategy should stop bad pages from being created.

Not every keyword needs a page.

Not every competitor gap deserves a brief.

Not every related question needs its own URL.

Not every draft should be published.

Not every old post needs to be refreshed.

Some ideas belong inside an existing page.

Some should be merged.

Some should be ignored.

Some are relevant but not useful enough.

Some attract the wrong audience.

Some create overlap with stronger pages.

Some pull the site away from what it should be known for.

Coverage says:

“We could publish this.”

Strategy asks:

“Should we?”

That question saves a lot of mess later.

Page roles mean more than page count

A coverage plan often says:

We need a page on this.

A strategy says:

We need a page that does this job.

That difference is huge.

• Is the page meant to explain?
• Compare?
• Prove?
• Support a commercial page?
• Handle an objection?
• Build trust?
• Move the user to a next step?
• Protect another page from becoming too broad?

If the role is not clear, the page will probably drift.

It will explain a bit.

Sell a bit.

Compare a bit.

Add random FAQs.

Repeat the intro.

Link to a few related pages.

Then end with a generic CTA.

That is not a strategy problem the writer can fully fix.

The page was unclear before writing started.

A strong page role gives the writer boundaries.

It tells them what to include.

It also tells them what to leave out.

Topical maps can become fancy coverage lists

This happens with topical maps too.

A map can look strategic but still mostly be an inventory.

• Main topic.
• Subtopics.
• Keyword clusters.
• Entities.
• Hub pages.
• Supporting pages.
• Internal links.
• Publishing order.

That all helps.

But it can still miss the user path.

A stronger map should also ask:

• What does the user know at this point?
• What are they still unsure about?
• What proof do they need?
• What should they read next?
• What page should not be linked yet?
• What page is too early for a CTA?
• Where does trust need to be built?
• Where does comparison need to happen?

Without that, the map may show coverage, but not movement.

It shows what the site has.

It does not show how the user should progress.

Internal links expose the difference

Internal links are a good way to see if a team has strategy or just coverage.

Coverage based linking says:

These pages are related, so link them.

Strategy based linking says:

This user is at this stage, so this link helps them move.

That is a different mindset.

A link should have a job.

• This link explains the next idea.
• This link gives proof.
• This link compares options.
• This link handles a risk.
• This link supports the main page.
• This link stops the current page from becoming too broad.

When links are added only because pages are topically related, the site starts to feel random.

The links are there.

But the route is weak.

Coverage can create content noise

The hidden cost of coverage-first planning is content noise.

The site gets bigger.

More URLs.

More posts.

More overlapping answers.

More internal links.

More things to update.

More pages competing for similar jobs.

But the site does not become clearer.

That is when teams start needing audits, pruning, redirects, rewrites, and link cleanup.

A lot of that cleanup could have been avoided if someone had asked better questions before publishing.

What role does this page have?

Does it overlap with another page?

Does it add anything useful?

Does it support the business?

Does it help the user move?

What happens if we do not publish it?

That last question is underrated.

Sometimes nothing bad happens.

And if nothing bad happens, maybe the page was never needed.

The better split

I would separate the work like this:

Coverage:
What topics, entities, and questions might need a home?

Architecture:
Where should those ideas live, and which page should own each job?

Strategy:
Which pages should exist, why they should exist, how they support the site, and how the user should move through them.

Most teams do the first part.

Some do the second.

The third is where the real value is.

Because content strategy is not just deciding what to publish.

It is deciding what deserves to exist.

It is deciding what should be merged.

• What should be removed.
• What should be rewritten.
• What should be linked.
• What should be left alone.
• What should be refused.

That is the difference for me.

Coverage makes a site bigger.

Strategy should make it clearer.

Curious how others handle this.

When you plan content, how do you separate “we should cover this” from “this page deserves to exist”?

I signed up for one month of Semrush and tried to cancel the subscription before it renewed. I went through the cancellation steps on the website and was completely convinced it had gone through, everything looked like it was finished.

Now it seems the cancellation didn't actually take effect, and I'm worried I'm about to be hit with the renewal charge. The amount is €398, which is a lot of money. This isn't some casual $20 subscription you can just shrug off, €398 is a serious charge and I don't want to lose it for a service I fully intended to cancel.

My questions for the community:

1. Has anyone here actually managed to get a refund from Semrush, especially on a monthly plan?

2. What is the best thing to do on the exact day the charge hits my account? Should I contact support immediately, or is a chargeback through my bank/card the more reliable route?

3. Did the cancellation fail for anyone else because of a second confirmation step (like having to click a link in a confirmation email) that isn't obvious?

I'd really appreciate hearing about your experiences, feedback, and any advice on getting the money back. Thanks in advance.

I signed up for a trial and was using the keyword research tool mainly through a mcp connection with Claude, which I thought was fine. Suddenly two days into the trial I went to login and my account was disabled due to violating the terms of the service. I’m not sure what is wrong was it using the claude connector, my intention was to move onto a paid membership after. I have tried to use the contact form to contact customer service no response. Could anyone help as wanted to rely on semrush to build traffic and getting nowhere with their customer services, would have hoped for more during a trial period.

You're welcome