Which Page Should Rank? Compare Serps, Search Intent, and Page-level Signals to Diagnose Keyword Cannibalization?

Keyword cannibalisation happens when two or more pages on the same website appear eligible for the same search query, leaving Google to decide which URL should rank. Sometimes both pages fluctuate. Sometimes the wrong page appears. In other cases, neither page performs as well as it should because relevance, links, content depth, and intent signals are divided across several URLs.

A proper keyword cannibalisation audit is not just a hunt for repeated phrases. You need to compare the search engine results pages, understand the search intent behind the query, inspect page-level signals, and decide whether the pages should compete, be consolidated, or be repositioned for different terms.

This guide gives you a repeatable framework for doing that. It also shows how an AI publishing platform such as SEO Letters can support the research, content planning, internal linking, writing, and refresh work that follows the diagnosis.

What Keyword Cannibalisation Actually Means

Keyword cannibalisation is a search visibility problem caused by overlapping pages, usually where multiple URLs target the same keyword or satisfy a very similar need.

The issue is often described too simply. Having two pages that mention the same keyword does not automatically mean they are cannibalising each other. A large website will naturally use related terms across several pages. A product page may mention “technical SEO software”, while a comparison guide discusses “best technical SEO tools”. That overlap can be perfectly healthy if the pages serve different purposes.

Cannibalisation becomes more likely when:

Two pages rank for the same primary query.
The ranking URL changes repeatedly without a clear reason.
Impressions are split between similar pages.
One page attracts clicks even though another URL is more useful.
Both pages have similar titles, headings, structure, and intent.
Internal links point inconsistently to competing URLs.
Backlinks are divided between pages that should really be one asset.
Google displays different URLs for the query across days or weeks.
Content updates on one URL appear to weaken another.

The central question is not, “Do these pages use the same keyword?” It is:

Which page gives searchers the strongest, clearest, and most complete answer to this query?

That is the page you should usually support.

Why Ranking Data Alone Does Not Prove Cannibalisation

Many SEOs see two URLs ranking for one term and immediately merge them. That can create a different problem. If the pages answer separate questions, consolidation may remove useful coverage and weaken the site’s topical authority.

A keyword cannibalisation diagnosis needs several types of evidence:

SERP evidence: What pages does Google currently favour?
Intent evidence: What does the searcher appear to want?
Page-level evidence: Which URL has stronger relevance and quality signals?
Performance evidence: Which page earns impressions, clicks, conversions, and links?
Site-architecture evidence: Which URL fits the intended content hierarchy?

Search results are not static. A query may show a mixture of guides, category pages, product listings, local results, videos, and forums. That mix tells you what Google believes the query means.

Start With a SERP Comparison, Not Your Content Inventory

A common audit mistake is to open your own pages first and decide which one looks better. That approach creates internal bias. Begin with the live SERP, because Google’s current results provide the most useful indication of intent and competitive expectations.

Search the target keyword in an incognito window, while also checking the result in a location and device setting that matches your audience. Record at least the top ten organic results, the presence of SERP features, and the type of page ranking for each result.

SERP Signals to Record

For each result, capture:

Ranking position.
URL and page type.
Title format.
Main content format.
Approximate content depth.
Freshness or last updated date.
Presence of product, category, tool, or service elements.
Featured snippets, People Also Ask boxes, videos, images, maps, or forums.
Whether the result answers a broad or narrow question.
The language and modifiers used in titles and headings.

A simple worksheet can make the comparison more objective:

SERP factor	What to record	Why it matters
Dominant page type	Guide, category, product, landing page, tool, comparison	Indicates the expected content format
Search stage	Informational, commercial, transactional, navigational	Helps determine the user’s likely need
Content angle	Beginner guide, technical solution, review, list, template	Reveals what Google sees as relevant
Freshness	Recent updates or publication dates	Suggests whether current information matters
SERP features	PAA, snippet, video, image, local pack	Shows how the query is being interpreted
Brand presence	Major publishers, specialists, retailers, forums	Helps assess authority and competitive context
URL pattern	Category, blog, product, support, glossary	Offers clues about page role

Read the SERP as a Pattern

One ranking result proves very little. A pattern across the first page is more useful.

If eight of the top ten results are detailed guides, your product page may struggle even if it contains useful information. If most results are category pages with product grids, a long educational article may be answering the wrong question. This is where search intent overlap becomes important: your two pages may overlap with one another, but neither may match the dominant SERP format.

For example, imagine you have these pages:

/seo-audit/
/seo-audit-checklist/
/technical-seo-audit/
/seo-audit-tools/

For the broad term “SEO audit”, Google might favour a comprehensive guide or service page. For “SEO audit checklist”, a downloadable or step-by-step resource may be more appropriate. For “technical SEO audit”, a specialist guide should lead. The words overlap, but the page roles do not need to.

Map Search Intent Before Choosing the Winning Page

Search intent is the underlying task the user wants to complete. It is more specific than labelling a term as merely informational or transactional.

A searcher entering “keyword cannibalisation” may want a definition. Someone searching “how to fix keyword cannibalisation” wants a process. A person typing “keyword cannibalisation tool” may be evaluating software. Treating all three as one intent creates weak page targeting.

Four Practical Intent Categories

Intent category	Searcher’s likely need	Suitable page type
Informational	Understand a concept or problem	Guide, explanation, glossary
Investigational	Compare options or approaches	Comparison, review, benchmark
Commercial	Assess a solution before buying	Product-led guide, service page
Transactional	Take an action or purchase	Product, pricing, sign-up, category page

These categories are useful, but you should go one layer deeper. Ask what outcome the searcher wants after reading the page.

For “keyword cannibalisation audit”, the desired outcome may be:

Finding a diagnostic process.
Downloading an audit template.
Reviewing software options.
Hiring an SEO consultant.
Learning how to interpret Search Console data.

The page that best supports that outcome should usually own the query.

Build an Intent Map for Competing URLs

Create a comparison for every URL ranking, or attempting to rank, for the same keyword:

URL	Primary intent	Secondary intent	Page promise	Recommended role
`/keyword-cannibalisation-guide/`	Informational	Diagnostic	Explains the issue and audit process	Main educational guide
`/keyword-cannibalisation-tool/`	Commercial	Transactional	Helps users detect overlap with software	Product or tool page
`/seo-audit-checklist/`	Informational	Practical	Provides a broader audit workflow	Supporting resource
`/seo-content-services/`	Commercial	Transactional	Offers managed content production	Service landing page

If two pages have the same primary intent, the same promise, and similar SERP positioning, they are stronger cannibalisation candidates. If their primary intents differ, you may need clearer internal linking and on-page differentiation rather than consolidation.

The Page-Level Signals That Help You Choose

Once you understand the SERP and intent, compare the competing URLs at page level. This is the part many audits rush through. Ranking history matters, but so do the signals that explain why one page is more likely to deserve visibility.

1. Topical Relevance

Check whether the page covers the topic completely enough for the query. Look at:

Title tag and H1 alignment.
Introductory promise.
Heading structure.
Entities and related concepts.
Supporting questions.
Original examples.
Internal links to relevant subtopics.
Whether the content answers the query directly.

A page can use the target keyword twenty times and still be less relevant than a page that explains the topic naturally and covers the important concepts in the right order.

For example, a page targeting “keyword cannibalisation audit” should probably address ranking URL changes, Search Console data, SERP comparison, search intent, internal links, redirects, canonicals, content consolidation, and monitoring. If it only defines cannibalisation, it is unlikely to be the best owner of the audit query.

2. Search Intent Alignment

Ask whether the page delivers what the SERP suggests people want.

A page-level intent review should assess:

The format of the answer.
The level of detail.
The reader’s likely stage in the buying or research process.
The calls to action.
The examples and terminology used.
The next step offered after the main answer.

A commercial page may be highly relevant to your business but still unsuitable for an informational query. That does not mean it is poor content. It may simply be the wrong URL to push for that term.

3. Content Quality and Usefulness

Evaluate the actual experience, not just word count. Long content can still be thin when it repeats generic advice without showing how to apply it.

Consider:

Does the page provide a clear answer near the beginning?
Are claims supported by practical reasoning or first-hand examples?
Does it explain difficult decisions, not just list them?
Are screenshots, data points, templates, or calculations included where useful?
Is the content current?
Does the page have a recognisable author or business context?
Is the advice safe and realistic for the intended audience?

Google’s quality systems are not a simple checklist, but evidence of experience and expertise can strengthen a page’s usefulness. Include audit examples, decision rules, and limitations. Be clear about where an approach may fail.

4. Internal Link Equity

Internal links often reveal which page your own site believes should rank. Unfortunately, large sites frequently send mixed signals.

Review:

The number of internal links pointing to each URL.
Anchor text used across the site.
Links from high-authority pages.
Navigation and breadcrumb placement.
Links from related topic cluster pages.
Whether competing pages link to one another.
Whether links use inconsistent wording.

If three pages target the same term and your strongest articles link to different URLs, Google may have difficulty identifying the preferred destination. Internal links cannot fix a fundamental intent mismatch, but they can reinforce a clear decision.

5. Backlinks and Referring Domains

External links are not automatically a reason to preserve a page. A weak page may have many low-quality links, while a stronger page may have fewer but more relevant referring domains.

Record:

Referring domain count.
Link relevance.
Authority and trust of linking sites.
Anchor text distribution.
Link growth over time.
Whether links point to outdated or duplicated content.
Whether links are likely to remain useful after consolidation.

If you merge two pages, redirect the weaker URL to the best equivalent destination. Do not redirect unrelated pages simply to transfer link equity. That can create poor user experiences and weak relevance.

6. Engagement and Conversion Data

Search Console and analytics data provide different clues.

Search Console can show:

Impressions by query and URL.
Clicks and click-through rate.
Average position.
URL volatility.
Queries shared by multiple pages.
Device and country differences.

Analytics or business data can show:

Organic landing sessions.
Engaged sessions.
Lead submissions.
Sign-ups.
Revenue.
Assisted conversions.
Scroll depth or interaction events.

A page with lower traffic but a much higher conversion rate may be the right commercial destination, while a broader guide should own informational visibility and link to it. The answer is not always to make the highest-traffic page the primary URL.

A Repeatable Keyword Cannibalisation Audit Process

Use this process when several URLs appear to target the same query. Run it in a spreadsheet, database, or SEO platform so decisions remain documented.

Step 1: Export Query-to-URL Data

Use Google Search Console to export at least three to six months of data. Include:

Query.
Landing page.
Impressions.
Clicks.
Average position.
CTR.
Country.
Device.
Date range.

Group the data by query, then identify queries associated with multiple URLs. Be careful with low-volume queries, because tiny fluctuations can look like cannibalisation when they are simply normal ranking noise.

Step 2: Create a Cannibalisation Candidate Score

You can use a simple scoring system to prioritise investigation:

Signal	Score
Two or more URLs receive impressions for the same query	2
Ranking URL changes repeatedly	2
Pages have the same primary intent	3
Titles and H1s target the same phrase	2
Internal links point to competing URLs	1
Content coverage is substantially duplicated	3
One page has very weak traffic or value	1
SERP consistently favours one page type	2

A score of 8 or more suggests a strong candidate for manual review. This is not a Google metric. It is simply a prioritisation method, which keeps your audit from turning into an endless list of vaguely similar pages.

Step 3: Check Whether the SERP Chooses One URL

Search the query over several dates. Use a rank tracker where possible, then compare the ranking URLs.

There are three common patterns:

Stable winner: One URL consistently ranks, while another receives occasional impressions.
URL switching: Google alternates between two or more URLs.
Shared visibility: Two URLs rank at the same time for different result positions or query variants.

The second pattern is the strongest sign of uncertainty, especially if the pages are similar. Still, check seasonality, page updates, technical changes, and algorithm shifts before deciding that content is the cause.

Step 4: Compare the Pages Side by Side

Use a page-level audit sheet:

Page-level factor	URL A	URL B	Stronger candidate
Primary intent
SERP format match
Topical coverage
Original value
Organic clicks
Conversions
Referring domains
Internal links
Freshness
Technical health
Brand or product fit

Do not decide from one metric. A page with stronger links but poor intent alignment may still be the wrong winner.

Step 5: Select the Preferred URL

Choose the URL that best combines:

Search intent alignment.
Current SERP suitability.
Business value.
Existing authority.
Content quality.
Technical stability.
Future expansion potential.

Think beyond the next ranking update. The preferred page should be capable of becoming the main authority asset for the topic.

Step 6: Assign a Treatment

There are four main treatments:

Differentiate: Give each page a distinct query and intent.
Consolidate: Combine the best material into one stronger page.
Redirect: Send an obsolete or redundant URL to the preferred destination.
Retain and clarify: Keep both pages, but improve titles, internal links, and topical boundaries.

A canonical tag may be appropriate in some cases, but it is not a universal cannibalisation fix. Canonicals are signals, not a guaranteed instruction, and they should reflect genuinely similar or duplicate content.

When to Consolidate Pages

A content consolidation strategy works best when the pages have overlapping intent and competing relevance. Combining them can produce a stronger asset with more complete coverage, clearer internal linking, and a single URL for external promotion.

Consolidation is usually appropriate when:

Both pages answer substantially the same question.
One page has weak or declining performance.
The pages contain repetitive sections.
Backlinks are divided between near-duplicate assets.
The SERP expects one comprehensive page.
Maintaining both URLs creates editorial confusion.
There is no convincing reason for a separate audience or funnel stage.

How to Consolidate Without Losing Value

Follow a controlled process:

Choose the preferred URL before editing.
Export both pages and preserve useful examples, data, and unique sections.
Build a new outline around the dominant intent.
Rewrite overlapping passages rather than stitching them together.
Add missing subtopics identified in the SERP review.
Update internal links throughout the website.
Implement a relevant 301 redirect from the retired URL.
Check canonicals, XML sitemaps, breadcrumbs, and structured data.
Submit the preferred URL for crawling.
Monitor rankings, clicks, conversions, and crawl behaviour for several weeks.

Do not create a bloated page simply because you are merging two articles. The result should be easier to use, not just longer.

When You Should Keep Both Pages

Not every overlap is harmful. Keep both URLs when they serve clearly separate needs.

Examples include:

A definition page and a detailed implementation guide.
A product page and a comparison article.
A broad topic guide and a specialist technical tutorial.
A local service page and a national educational resource.
A category page and an individual product page.
A beginner resource and an advanced practitioner guide.

In these cases, adjust the targeting so the relationship is obvious.

Ways to Reduce Accidental Overlap

Give each page a distinct title and H1.
Assign one primary keyword to each URL.
Use different supporting terms and questions.
Clarify the audience and expected outcome.
Link from the broad page to the specialist page.
Link back with descriptive, context-specific anchor text.
Remove sections that duplicate the other page.
Add unique examples and calls to action.
Use breadcrumbs and category structure consistently.

A useful test is to ask whether a reader would be disappointed to land on either page. If the answer is yes, the pages probably need stronger differentiation.

Common Cannibalisation Diagnosis Errors

Mistaking Topic Coverage for Keyword Conflict

A website should discuss important concepts in multiple contexts. Repeated terms are normal, particularly for entities and technical subjects. The problem is not repetition itself. It is unclear page purpose.

Treating Search Console Impressions as a Ranking Penalty

If two URLs receive impressions for one query, Google is not necessarily penalising the site. It may be testing relevance, responding to query variations, or showing different URLs for different users.

Look for measurable loss, unstable URL selection, and intent duplication before making structural changes.

Using Canonicals as a Shortcut

Adding a canonical from one page to another while leaving both pages indexable and internally promoted may not resolve the underlying problem. If the content is redundant, a redirect or proper consolidation is often clearer.

Redirecting to a Weak Page

A redirect should point to the closest, most useful replacement. Sending every old article to the homepage or a loosely related category page can waste relevance and frustrate visitors.

Ignoring Business Intent

The page with the most clicks is not always the page that should own a query. If an informational guide attracts links and research traffic, it may need to remain the ranking asset while directing qualified readers to a product or service page.

How SEO Letters Supports the Workflow

A successful cannibalisation programme involves more than editing one article. You need keyword research, topic clustering, competitor benchmarking, page briefs, internal links, publishing controls, and refresh scheduling. That is where SEO Letters can support the wider workflow.

SEO Letters is an AI writing engine for people who publish professionally. It can take a keyword or content brief and help create a structured article with headings, internal links, schema, images, and a voice aligned with your brand guidelines.

For a cannibalisation project, the useful workflow can include:

Researching related keywords and difficulty ratings.
Building topical authority clusters.
Identifying content gaps against competitors.
Creating distinct briefs for pages with overlapping intent.
Rewriting or consolidating content into a preferred URL.
Adding contextual internal links.
Generating content in 21 languages.
Publishing directly to WordPress, Shopify, or webhooks.
Scheduling new content and content refresh campaigns.
Reviewing published performance in a central dashboard.

The platform also lets you bring your own AI keys and route stages to Gemini, OpenAI, or Claude. That matters for teams with established model preferences, data policies, or cost controls.

A Practical Example: Diagnosing Three Competing Pages

Imagine an ecommerce site has three URLs connected to the query “best running shoes for beginners”:

/best-running-shoes/
/running-shoes-for-beginners/
/running-shoes-buying-guide/

At first glance, all three appear relevant. A shallow audit might merge them immediately. A proper review gives a more useful result.

SERP Findings

The first page contains:

List-based commercial guides.
Retail category pages.
Reviews with product recommendations.
A People Also Ask section about fit, cushioning, and injury prevention.

The SERP suggests commercial investigation rather than a purely informational definition.

Page Comparison

Signal	Best running shoes	Beginners page	Buying guide
Main format	Product list	Product list	Educational guide
Commercial relevance	High	High	Medium
Beginner terminology	Low	High	Medium
Product links	Strong	Strong	Limited
Backlinks	High	Low	Medium
Conversions	Medium	High	Low
Search intent fit	Broad	Strong for target query	Partial

The beginner page should probably own “best running shoes for beginners”. The broader page can target “best running shoes” and link to it. The buying guide should target queries such as “how to choose running shoes” and “running shoe fit guide”.

No redirect is needed if the pages are rewritten with clear roles. This is an example of search intent mapping solving what initially looked like a duplicate keyword targeting problem.

Technical Checks After Your Decision

Content changes alone may not settle URL selection. Complete a technical review after choosing the preferred page.

Check:

Canonical tags.
Indexability directives.
XML sitemap inclusion.
Redirect chains.
Internal links to redirected URLs.
Breadcrumb paths.
Hreflang relationships for international pages.
Structured data and URL references.
Pagination or faceted navigation.
Duplicate title tags and meta descriptions.
Mobile rendering and page speed.
Orphaned pages.
Soft 404 behaviour.

If the site operates in multiple languages, check whether the same cannibalisation issue appears across translated versions. SEO Letters can help generate multilingual content, but each language version still needs proper intent mapping, localisation, internal linking, and hreflang implementation.

Measuring Whether the Fix Worked

Do not judge a cannibalisation fix the day after publishing. Rankings can move while Google recrawls, reprocesses, and reassesses the updated page.

Track results at several levels:

KPI	What improvement may look like
Preferred URL impressions	More consistent visibility for the target query
Preferred URL clicks	Increased qualified organic traffic
Average position	Improved or stabilised ranking
URL volatility	Fewer switches between competing pages
CTR	Better alignment between title, intent, and SERP
Conversions	More leads, sales, or sign-ups from organic traffic
Internal link consistency	Fewer links pointing to retired or secondary URLs
Crawl and index status	Clearer indexing of the preferred destination

Use a baseline covering at least four weeks before the change where data allows. Compare against a similar period after the update, while accounting for seasonality, sitewide changes, algorithm updates, and promotional activity.

Suggested Monitoring Schedule

Week 1: Check redirects, canonicals, indexability, and broken links.
Weeks 2 to 4: Review crawling, impressions, and early URL selection.
Weeks 5 to 8: Compare rankings, clicks, CTR, and engagement.
Weeks 9 to 12: Assess conversions, links, and whether further optimisation is justified.

A temporary traffic decline does not automatically mean the consolidation failed. The old page may have held impressions that were never valuable, or the preferred URL may need additional links and content refinement.

Cannibalisation Detection Tools and Their Limits

There are several useful cannibalisation detection tools, including Google Search Console, rank trackers, log analysis platforms, crawling software, analytics systems, and keyword databases. Each exposes a different part of the problem.

Tool Comparison

Tool type	Best use	Limitation
Google Search Console	Query-to-URL performance	Limited historical and competitor detail
Rank tracker	URL switching and SERP monitoring	Can be expensive at scale
Crawler	Titles, canonicals, links, duplication	Does not understand intent reliably
Analytics platform	Engagement and conversions	Attribution can be imperfect
Backlink tool	Link equity by URL	Link quality still needs manual review
Content platform	Briefs, clustering, publishing, refreshes	Requires strategic human decisions

Software can identify patterns quickly, but it cannot always decide which page deserves to survive. That decision depends on audience, business model, SERP context, and the future role of the site.

SEO Letters is particularly useful when the diagnosis leads to a larger content operation. You can turn keyword research and cluster analysis into structured briefs, create replacement content, connect supporting articles with internal links, and schedule refresh work rather than letting old pages decay quietly.

A Decision Framework for Choosing the Correct Page

Use this five-question framework for every suspected conflict:

What does the searcher want right now?
Which page format dominates the live SERP?
Which URL best fulfils that intent today?
Which page has the strongest combined authority, quality, and business value?
Can the competing URL be differentiated without confusing the site structure?

Score each page from 1 to 5 against the following criteria:

Criterion	Weight	Page score
Search intent alignment	5
SERP format match	5
Topical completeness	4
Organic performance	3
Conversion value	3
Backlink strength	3
Internal link support	2
Technical health	2
Future content expansion	2

Multiply each score by the weight, then compare the totals. The numbers do not replace judgement, but they make the reasoning visible and easier to defend when several stakeholders have opinions.

Building a Long-Term Prevention System

Cannibalisation is easier to prevent than to repair at scale. The solution is not to avoid publishing on related topics. It is to define page roles before content production begins.

Your editorial process should include:

A keyword-to-URL map.
One primary intent for each planned page.
A defined audience and funnel stage.
A list of pages the new article must support.
A list of pages the new article must not duplicate.
Internal link destinations selected before publication.
A review of existing content before creating a new URL.
Scheduled audits for high-value topic clusters.

A topical authority plan should show how broad pages connect to narrower resources. For instance:

Pillar: keyword cannibalisation.
Cluster page: how to run a keyword cannibalisation audit.
Cluster page: Search Console cannibalisation checks.
Cluster page: content consolidation strategy.
Cluster page: internal linking and competing URLs.
Product page: SEO content and publishing platform.

Each page has a job. That makes the site more coherent for readers and search engines.

Using Scheduled Content Refreshes to Prevent Future Overlap

Content decay and cannibalisation often appear together. Older pages continue ranking for terms that now belong to a newer guide, while both URLs accumulate partial signals. If you only publish new articles, the problem keeps returning.

A scheduled refresh campaign can help you:

Review overlapping pages at set intervals.
Update titles and intent assignments.
Merge outdated sections.
Remove redundant articles.
Repair internal links.
Refresh statistics, examples, and screenshots.
Reassess SERP changes.
Reconfirm the preferred URL.

SEO Letters supports autonomous publishing and refresh campaigns, allowing you to set a topic, cadence, and destination. The system can handle research, drafting, and publishing steps while your team reviews strategy, quality, and performance. It is a practical way to manage a content portfolio rather than treating every article as a one-off project.

Key Takeaways

Keyword cannibalisation is an intent and URL-selection problem, not simply repeated keyword usage.
Start with the live SERP and identify the dominant content format.
Compare search intent, page quality, internal links, backlinks, and business outcomes.
Use Search Console to find query-to-URL overlap, but verify the pattern manually.
Consolidate pages when they serve the same purpose and divide authority.
Keep pages separate when their audiences, formats, or funnel stages differ.
Use redirects, canonicals, internal links, and sitemaps consistently after making a decision.
Monitor URL stability, organic clicks, conversions, and rankings for several weeks.
Build keyword maps and topical clusters before publishing new content.
Use a publishing and refresh platform such as SEO Letters to maintain the system at scale.

Final Conclusion: Diagnose the Intent, Then Choose the URL

The page that should rank is usually the one that best matches the searcher’s immediate need, reflects the dominant SERP format, and has the strongest combination of relevance, quality, authority, and business value. That answer may be an existing article, a product page, a newly consolidated resource, or a differentiated supporting page.

Do not make the decision from keyword frequency alone. Compare the SERPs, map search intent, inspect page-level signals, and document the treatment you choose. When the work is complete, your site should have a clear answer to one practical question: which URL would you confidently send to a searcher asking this query?

If your content operation needs to research topics, build authority clusters, write structured articles, add internal links, publish across platforms, and refresh pages on schedule, open SEO Letters. If you need support with a specific diagnosis, use the rightbar as the contact path and bring your query-to-URL data, ranking history, and competing page examples.