Content Writing Company Research Workflows: Build Evidence-led Briefs with Software-led Blog Production

A content writing company can publish dozens of articles every month and still lose organic visibility through keyword cannibalisation. The problem usually begins before the first draft: two briefs target the same query, several pages answer nearly identical intents, or a new article quietly competes with an established page that already owns the topic.

This is where an evidence-led research workflow matters. You need a process that connects keyword research, search intent, competitor analysis, content briefs, internal linking and publishing decisions in one place. Manual spreadsheets can support a small editorial team for a while, but the whole thing becomes fragile once you manage multiple websites, writers, clients, languages or publishing schedules.

SEO Letters is built for this type of software-led production. It helps you move from a keyword and a research question to a structured article, with topical planning, keyword difficulty analysis, content-gap research, internal links, images, schema and direct publishing included in the workflow. The point is not simply to produce more text. It is to reduce research gaps and stop avoidable overlap before it reaches your website.

Why keyword cannibalisation starts inside the content writing workflow

Keyword cannibalisation happens when multiple pages on the same website compete for similar search demand, especially when Google cannot identify which URL is the strongest result for a query. The pages may not be exact duplicates. They can still create a confusing signal.

A content writing company often sees this pattern in fast-growing blogs:

One article targets “best project management software”.
Another targets “top project management tools”.
A third focuses on “project management platforms for teams”.
A fourth is written around “project management software comparison”.
All four pages use similar headings, examples and commercial language.

At first glance, these look like separate article ideas. In practice, they may share the same primary intent, the same entities and a very similar set of supporting keywords. That creates SEO content overlap, and the result can be unstable rankings across several URLs rather than one clearly authoritative page.

The issue is not always that every overlapping page should be deleted. Sometimes the pages need consolidation. Sometimes they need stronger differentiation. In other cases, the site needs a pillar page, a supporting comparison page and several genuinely separate use-case articles.

The decision depends on evidence.

Common causes of content overlap

Keyword cannibalisation is rarely caused by one careless writer. It usually comes from a production system that lacks a shared view of the site.

Typical causes include:

Different writers researching the same topic independently.
Keyword lists imported from several tools without deduplication.
Briefs based on keywords rather than search intent.
Content calendars organised by publication date instead of topic architecture.
Product pages and blog posts targeting the same commercial phrase.
Old articles being refreshed without checking newer URLs.
Competitor gaps being treated as automatic article opportunities.
AI-generated drafts created without URL-level review.
Regional pages using identical copy across locations or languages.
Internal links pointing to several pages with the same anchor text.

A workflow can be busy and still be poorly controlled. That is the uncomfortable bit.

For a content writing company, the editorial risk increases when account managers, SEO specialists, writers and publishers each work from separate systems. A keyword may be approved in one document, assigned in another, drafted in a third and published without anyone checking the current SERP landscape or the existing page inventory.

The commercial cost of duplicate keyword targeting

Cannibalisation is not merely a technical SEO concern. It affects editorial budgets, conversion paths and reporting.

If three pages target the same intent, you may be paying for three research projects, three drafts, three rounds of editing and three publishing tasks to achieve the visibility that one properly planned page could have delivered. That is inefficient in its own right, and it can make performance reporting difficult because traffic, backlinks and conversions are distributed across competing URLs.

The main commercial effects often include:

Impact area	What can happen	Measurement to monitor
Organic rankings	Several URLs fluctuate for the same query	Ranking position by URL and query
Click-through rate	Impressions are split across similar results	Query-level CTR
Link acquisition	Backlinks point to different pages	Referring domains by topic
Crawl efficiency	Search engines revisit redundant content	Crawl stats and index coverage
Conversion rate	Users land on a weaker or less relevant page	Assisted and direct conversions
Editorial cost	Teams produce unnecessary content	Cost per indexed, qualified page
Internal linking	Authority is distributed between similar URLs	Internal links and target-page share
Reporting	Gains and losses are hard to attribute	Topic-level visibility and conversions

This is why a ranking dilution analysis should be part of the editorial workflow. The question is not simply, “Which page ranks?” You should also ask, “How many URLs are receiving impressions for this intent, and is that distribution helping or weakening the site?”

A practical warning: do not treat every ranking fluctuation as proof of cannibalisation. Similar keywords may produce different SERPs, and a site can rank multiple URLs for a broad topic without a serious conflict. The evidence needs to include intent, page type, query overlap, content similarity and performance history.

A software-led research workflow for evidence-led content briefs

A reliable content writing company workflow should make the important decisions visible before drafting starts. The following framework is suitable for an in-house team, agency, affiliate publisher or software-led blog operation.

Step 1: Build a complete URL and topic inventory

Start with the assets you already own. Export your indexed URLs, titles, primary keywords, organic clicks, impressions, ranking queries, backlinks, conversions and last update date.

Your inventory should include more than blog articles:

Service pages.
Product pages.
Category and collection pages.
Glossary entries.
Comparison pages.
Case studies.
Location pages.
Resource hubs.
PDFs and other indexable files.
Redirect targets.
Pages excluded from the XML sitemap but still accessible.

A keyword list alone cannot reveal cannibalisation. You need to understand which URLs already address the subject.

Create a working record with these fields:

Field	Purpose
URL	Identifies the current asset
Page type	Separates blog, product, category and other intent
Main topic	Groups semantically related pages
Primary query	Records the intended target
Current ranking terms	Shows what Google associates with the URL
Search intent	Defines informational, commercial, transactional or navigational purpose
Organic clicks	Indicates actual traffic contribution
Conversions	Shows business value
Backlinks	Helps identify authority that may need consolidation
Refresh date	Flags ageing content
Action	Keep, merge, rewrite, redirect, differentiate or monitor

SEO Letters can support this planning layer by turning keyword research into organised topic structures rather than disconnected terms. When your research and production system share the same topic view, a new article can be assessed against existing coverage before it enters the drafting queue.

Step 2: Group keywords by intent, not just similarity

Semantic similarity is useful, but it is not enough. Two phrases can contain different words and still represent one search journey. Two nearly identical phrases may need separate pages if the SERP shows different content types or audiences.

Classify each keyword using several dimensions:

Primary intent: informational, commercial investigation, transactional or navigational.
Audience stage: problem awareness, solution research, vendor comparison or purchase.
Object: product, service, process, platform, method or role.
Modifier: audience, location, price, feature, industry or use case.
SERP format: guides, listicles, category pages, product pages, videos, forums or local results.
Expected action: learn, compare, shortlist, contact, subscribe or buy.

This reveals search intent conflict. For example, “how to automate payroll” may require an educational guide, while “payroll automation software” may require a commercial landing page. The vocabulary overlaps, but the user expectation does not.

A brief should state the intended distinction in plain terms:

This page explains the process for small business owners. It must not compete with the payroll software category page, which targets buyers comparing platforms.

That one sentence can prevent a costly rewrite.

Step 3: Assess the SERP before approving a new page

Search results are a useful source of market evidence because they show the content formats Google is currently rewarding. They also indicate whether two proposed topics are genuinely separate.

For each candidate keyword, review:

The dominant page types in the top results.
Repeated subtopics and entities.
Featured snippets and People Also Ask questions.
Commercial language and calls to action.
Whether the same domains rank with several URLs.
The freshness of ranking pages.
The depth and format expected by the searcher.
Whether results change significantly when the modifier is added.

You can score each proposed topic from 1 to 5:

Factor	1 point	3 points	5 points
Distinct intent	Almost identical to existing page	Some distinction	Clearly different task
SERP separation	Same results and formats	Partial overlap	Different result set
Audience distinction	Same audience	Slightly different	Separate audience or use case
Business value	Weak or unclear	Moderate	Strong conversion relevance
Content depth	Thin variation only	Some unique substance	Substantial original scope

A new page should normally score at least 18 out of 25. If it scores lower, investigate whether consolidation, a section expansion or a different content format would be more sensible.

These scores are not a substitute for judgement. They make the judgement easier to audit across a large publishing operation.

SEO Letters for faster cannibalisation-aware content research

A conventional content writing company may ask a writer to find a keyword, inspect competitors and produce a brief. That approach can work, although it relies heavily on individual memory and careful manual checking.

SEO Letters brings more of the process into a repeatable software workflow. Its keyword research features can help identify difficulty ratings, related terms and content opportunities, while topical authority planning gives you a broader view of how individual articles fit into a cluster.

This matters because cannibalisation is a structural issue. You cannot reliably solve it by improving one draft at a time.

Use topic clusters to assign one job to each page

A topical authority cluster should give every page a clear role. Consider a fictional accounting software website:

Cluster layer	Page purpose	Example target
Pillar	Broad educational and navigational resource	Accounting software for small businesses
Supporting guide	Explains a specific process	How to choose accounting software
Comparison	Evaluates alternatives	Best accounting software for freelancers
Feature page	Targets a product capability	Invoicing and expense tracking software
Use-case page	Addresses a defined audience	Accounting software for tradespeople
Transactional page	Supports purchase action	Small business accounting software

The pages can link to each other, but they should not all attempt to rank for the same broad commercial phrase. Their headings, examples, calls to action and internal link priorities should reinforce their assigned role.

A content cluster is not a collection of loosely related articles. It is a controlled architecture.

Create a keyword ownership register

Before a new brief is approved, assign a primary query to one URL. Supporting terms can appear elsewhere, but the main target should have an identifiable owner.

A keyword ownership register may include:

Query	Assigned URL	Search intent	Secondary URLs allowed?	Review date
content writing company	`/content-writing-company/`	Commercial	Limited supporting mentions	Quarterly
content writing workflow	`/content-writing-workflow/`	Informational	Yes, with contextual links	Quarterly
SEO content brief template	`/seo-content-brief-template/`	Informational	No competing guide	Monthly
blog writing software	`/blog-writing-software/`	Commercial	Product page may support	Monthly

The register does not prevent natural language variation. It prevents a production team from treating every variation as a new article opportunity.

SEO Letters can be used to connect keyword discovery with article generation and scheduled publication, so the assigned target, content angle and production destination are kept closer together. That helps when you operate several campaigns at once.

Designing the evidence-led brief

A content brief should be a decision document, not a list of keywords followed by a suggested word count. It needs to explain why the page exists, whom it serves, what it must cover and how it differs from nearby assets.

Essential sections in a cannibalisation-safe brief

Include the following sections:

1. Page objective

State the business and search outcome:

Help operations managers compare workflow automation methods and move qualified readers towards a software consultation.

2. Primary keyword and intent

Record the main query, intent category and the action implied by the SERP.

3. URL decision

Explain whether the article will use a new URL or improve an existing one. If the topic resembles another page, document the reason for keeping both.

4. Differentiation statement

Write one direct sentence:

This article focuses on implementation costs for mid-sized teams, while the existing guide explains the basic concept for beginners.

If you cannot write this sentence, the topic may not be sufficiently distinct.

5. Existing URL conflicts

List pages that overlap in:

Primary keyword.
Search intent.
Audience.
SERP format.
Subtopics.
Conversion objective.
Internal anchor text.

6. SERP evidence

Record the top-ranking patterns and the gaps that the new page can address. Avoid claiming a gap exists simply because one competitor omitted a minor heading. A meaningful gap usually concerns audience, process, evidence, clarity or commercial usefulness.

7. Proposed structure

Map H2 and H3 sections to user questions. Each section should earn its place. If the same outline appears in three existing articles, you probably have an architecture problem.

8. Internal linking plan

Specify:

Which pages should link to the new article.
Which pages the new article should support.
Preferred anchor variations.
Links that should be removed or redirected.
Whether the link is contextual, navigational or transactional.

9. Trust and evidence requirements

Identify the sources, first-hand experience, expert review, original examples or data needed. For YMYL topics, include a stricter review process and credible citations.

10. Consolidation trigger

Set a future rule such as:

If this page and /existing-page/ rank for the same core query for eight consecutive weeks, review for merge or intent separation.

This turns editorial maintenance into a defined process rather than a vague future task.

The role of content writing software in production quality

Software should not be used as an excuse to remove editorial controls. Its value comes from reducing repetitive work and making decisions easier to repeat.

A software-led blog production workflow can help with:

Keyword discovery and difficulty assessment.
Cluster and topical map development.
Competitor content-gap analysis.
Search-focused article outlines.
Draft generation based on a defined brief.
Internal link suggestions.
Schema and metadata preparation.
Image selection or generation.
Multi-language production.
WordPress, Shopify and webhook publishing.
Performance monitoring.
Content refresh scheduling.

The human role shifts towards strategy, judgement, quality assurance and brand governance. That is more useful than asking a writer to manually copy research from five tools into a document.

A practical production pipeline

Use this sequence for each article:

Research: identify the keyword, audience, SERP type and existing URL relationships.
Classify: assign intent, topic cluster, funnel stage and page owner.
Brief: document differentiation, structure, evidence and internal links.
Generate: create the draft in the required brand voice and content format.
Review: check factual accuracy, overlap, claims, links and commercial alignment.
Optimise: improve title, headings, entities, metadata, schema and media.
Publish: send the approved page to WordPress, Shopify or another destination.
Measure: track impressions, rankings, clicks, engagement and conversions.
Refresh: update declining or outdated pages before commissioning unnecessary replacements.

SEO Letters is particularly relevant to the final three stages because its workflow is designed around production and publishing, not just text generation. Its autonomous campaign scheduler can be configured around a topic, publishing cadence and destination, while refresh campaigns can revisit existing content. That is useful for teams that need consistent output without constantly opening new, overlapping article requests.

Cannibalisation audit tools and how to use their data

There is no single cannibalisation report that explains every case. You usually need to combine data from several sources, then interpret it at topic level.

Useful data sources include:

Google Search Console query and page reports.
A rank-tracking platform with URL-level history.
Site crawlers for titles, headings, canonicals and internal links.
Backlink tools.
Analytics and conversion reporting.
Content similarity checks.
A content inventory or editorial database.
SERP inspection and manual review.

Signals that suggest a real conflict

Look for combinations of signals rather than isolated events:

Two or more URLs rank for the same important query.
Ranking URLs change frequently without a clear content update.
Impressions are split across pages with similar intent.
One URL receives backlinks while another receives most clicks.
Both pages use similar titles, H1s and anchor text.
The pages answer the same practical question.
Search Console shows declining clicks after a new page is published.
Internal links distribute authority to several URLs for one topic.
One page ranks for terms that better match another page’s purpose.

A simple risk score can help prioritise reviews:

Signal	Score
Same core query in top 20	3
Same search intent	3
Similar title or H1	2
More than 40% topical phrase overlap	2
Ranking volatility between URLs	2
Shared internal-link anchor pattern	1
Conflicting conversion goal	2

A score of 8 or more deserves a manual audit. It does not automatically mean a redirect is required.

What to do after a cannibalisation audit

Choose one of these actions:

Consolidate: merge the strongest information into one URL and redirect the weaker page.
Differentiate: revise the title, scope, examples, headings and internal links to serve a distinct intent.
Canonicalise: use only when the pages are substantially similar and the canonical relationship is technically appropriate.
De-optimise: remove an accidental target phrase from a page that should serve another purpose.
Keep and monitor: retain both pages when the SERPs, audiences and conversions are meaningfully different.
Noindex or remove: consider this for thin, redundant or low-value content after checking links and traffic.

Do not rely on changing one keyword. If the page still answers the same question with the same structure, the conflict may remain.

Example: fixing overlap in a content writing company blog

Imagine a content writing company has these three URLs:

URL	Existing title	Main issue
`/content-writing-services/`	Content Writing Services for Growing Brands	Commercial service page
`/content-writing-company/`	Best Content Writing Company Guide	Commercial and informational mix
`/how-to-outsource-content-writing/`	How to Outsource Content Writing	Informational guide

The second page has begun ranking for “content writing company”, but the service page has stronger backlinks and a clearer enquiry path. The third page ranks for outsourcing-related queries, although its introduction repeatedly targets the same company phrase.

A sensible remediation plan could be:

Make /content-writing-services/ the primary commercial page.
Rework /content-writing-company/ into an independent buyer’s guide comparing providers, processes and evaluation criteria.
Remove commercial service claims from the outsourcing guide unless they directly support the educational intent.
Link the guide to the service page using descriptive, varied anchor text.
Add a clear editorial note explaining the difference between hiring a company and using software.
Track query-level performance for eight to twelve weeks.

This is where SEO Letters can support the new production cycle. The buyer’s guide can be researched, briefed and drafted around a distinct angle, then connected to the relevant service or product destination. The software does not decide the architecture on its own. It helps the team execute the architecture consistently.

Building a content writing company workflow around brand and evidence

A software-generated article still needs governance. If every article sounds generic, makes unsupported claims or uses the same introduction, the site may publish efficiently while weakening trust.

Create a brand and evidence standard that covers:

Preferred spelling and regional English.
Approved terminology.
Audience definitions.
Claims that require citations.
Product or service descriptions.
Competitor comparison rules.
Internal-link conventions.
First-person experience requirements.
Expert review thresholds.
Image and accessibility standards.
Disclosure requirements for affiliate or sponsored content.

For example, a financial services article should identify who reviewed it, when the information was checked and which official sources support the advice. A software comparison should show how products were assessed, rather than presenting a vague “best” list.

SEO Letters supports brand-aware article production by allowing you to set the required voice and route stages to models such as Gemini, OpenAI or Claude using your own AI keys. That flexibility is useful when different clients have separate data policies, cost controls or quality preferences.

It also supports generation in 21 languages, which can help international teams build regional content plans. Be cautious, though. Translation is not the same as localisation. Search behaviour, commercial terminology and cannibalisation risks need to be checked in each market.

Internal linking as a cannibalisation control

Internal links can clarify topical relationships, but they can also reinforce confusion. If six pages all link to different URLs using “best SEO content tool” as the anchor, search engines and users receive a mixed signal about the preferred destination.

Create a link map for each cluster:

One primary page for the broad commercial or pillar intent.
Supporting pages with narrower, recognisable purposes.
Contextual links between related stages.
Clear links from informational content to relevant commercial pages.
Limited, deliberate links to pages targeting adjacent terms.
Consistent navigation without excessive exact-match anchors.

A content writing tool that generates internal-link suggestions can save time, but review every recommendation. Relevance depends on context. A link should help the reader complete the next task, not exist merely to insert a phrase.

Measuring success after a workflow change

A new content workflow should be judged by more than published word count. Set baseline metrics before you alter the process.

Recommended KPIs

Track these at page, cluster and domain level:

Number of indexed pages per topic.
Ranking URLs per priority query.
Share of impressions held by the preferred URL.
Average ranking position by URL.
Organic clicks and click-through rate.
Non-brand traffic.
Qualified leads or sales.
Assisted conversions.
Time from brief approval to publication.
Cost per published and maintained page.
Content refresh completion rate.
Internal links to priority pages.
Pages with unresolved overlap risk.

A useful indicator is preferred URL visibility share:

Impressions received by the intended ranking URL ÷ total impressions received by all competing URLs for the query set

If one page should own a topic but its share declines after several similar articles are published, investigate the architecture. This metric is not a Google ranking factor. It is an internal management measure that makes dilution visible.

Set realistic review periods

Content performance rarely stabilises immediately. Review at:

Two weeks for indexing, technical errors and publication integrity.
Six to eight weeks for early query movement.
Twelve weeks for stronger ranking and cannibalisation patterns.
Six months for cluster-level authority and conversion trends.

Seasonality, link acquisition, algorithm changes and brand demand can affect the results. Keep notes about major changes so the analysis does not confuse correlation with causation.

A repeatable editorial checklist

Before commissioning a new article, ask:

Does an existing URL already satisfy this search intent?
Is the primary keyword assigned to one page?
Does the proposed page have a distinct audience or task?
Have the current SERPs been reviewed?
Is the page type appropriate?
Is there a strong business reason to create it?
Can the differentiation statement be written clearly?
Will this page strengthen the topic cluster?
Which pages should link to it?
Could an existing article be expanded instead?
What evidence or first-hand input is required?
What will trigger a future merge or refresh?

Before publishing, check:

The title matches the actual intent.
The H1 is not a duplicate of another important page.
The introduction sets a clear scope.
Sections do not repeat a stronger existing article without adding value.
Claims are supported and current.
Internal links point to the intended owners.
Canonical, indexation and schema settings are correct.
Images include useful alternative text.
Metadata is specific and not copied from another URL.
The call to action matches the reader’s stage.

Why autonomous campaigns need editorial guardrails

Scheduled publishing can solve a consistency problem, but it can also multiply an architecture problem. If a campaign publishes one article every day around a broad keyword theme, it may produce a large collection of pages that overlap in subtle ways.

Set campaign guardrails:

Define the cluster and its primary page.
Upload excluded topics and existing URLs.
Set audience and intent boundaries.
Approve a batch of article angles before automatic production.
Establish a maximum number of pages per subtopic.
Require review for commercial claims and regulated subjects.
Schedule refreshes alongside new articles.
Monitor query ownership after publication.

SEO Letters’ autonomous campaign scheduler is most useful when paired with this kind of planning. You can set a cadence and destination, but the strategic rules still need to come from your SEO team. Automation handles the repeatable movement between research, drafting and publishing. It should not be allowed to invent your site architecture by accident.

Content refresh campaigns versus endless new articles

A mature content writing company should ask whether a new URL is needed at all. Existing pages often have historical signals, backlinks, indexed coverage and partial rankings that a new article would need to rebuild from zero.

Prioritise a refresh when:

The page receives impressions but has a poor click-through rate.
Rankings have declined while the intent remains valid.
Important competitor sections are missing.
The article contains outdated facts or examples.
Search results favour a different format.
Internal links have changed.
A newer article is competing with it.
Conversions are weak despite relevant traffic.

A refresh brief should identify what to preserve. Do not rewrite a page blindly and remove the sections responsible for its existing visibility.

A useful refresh decision matrix:

Situation	Recommended action
Strong backlinks, declining rankings, same intent	Refresh and improve
Thin page, weak links, same intent as stronger URL	Merge and redirect
Different audience, overlapping language	Differentiate
Outdated information with no current demand	Remove or archive
Good rankings but poor conversions	Improve UX and conversion path
Several URLs sharing one query set	Run a ranking dilution analysis

SEO Letters as a complete blog production engine

The practical advantage of SEO Letters is that it covers more of the publishing operation than a basic AI writing interface. You can use it for keyword research, topical authority clusters, competitor gap analysis, article creation, internal linking, schema, images, publishing and performance monitoring.

That makes it suitable for:

Content agencies managing several client sites.
Affiliate publishers producing product-aware articles.
E-commerce teams publishing category and buying guides.
SaaS companies building topical authority.
International marketing teams working across 21 languages.
Small businesses that need a dependable content cadence.
SEO consultants who want to standardise delivery.

The product-aware workflow is especially relevant to affiliate and store publishing, where informational articles often need a clear connection to products, collections or comparison pages. The editorial brief should still disclose commercial relationships and keep the advice useful, but the production path becomes easier to manage.

You can also bring your own AI keys and route different stages to Gemini, OpenAI or Claude. That gives teams more control over model selection, operating costs and client requirements. It is a practical consideration when a content writing company is supporting multiple brands with different workflows.

The right balance between software and editorial judgement

The strongest model is not “software replaces every writer”. It is a controlled system where software takes on repeatable production tasks and people handle decisions that require context.

Software is well suited to:

Sorting large keyword sets.
Generating initial topic relationships.
Creating structured outlines.
Producing first drafts.
Suggesting internal links.
Applying publishing formats.
Scheduling campaigns.
Flagging content for refresh.
Tracking output and performance.

Human review remains important for:

Search intent interpretation.
Cannibalisation decisions.
Brand positioning.
Factual accuracy.
Original insight.
Legal and compliance risk.
Product claims.
Expert experience.
Consolidation and redirect strategy.

A content writing company that ignores this division may publish more pages but create less useful search coverage. The aim is controlled scale, not uncontrolled volume.

Key takeaways for content writing company workflows

Keyword cannibalisation is usually a workflow failure before it becomes a ranking problem. The fix starts with a complete URL inventory, intent-led keyword grouping and a clear owner for every important search topic.

Use this operating model:

Audit existing URLs before approving new topics.
Group keywords by intent, audience and SERP format.
Record one primary URL for each strategic query.
Make every brief include a differentiation statement.
Use topic clusters to define page roles.
Review SEO content overlap at URL level.
Run cannibalisation audit tools against ranking and impression data.
Use ranking dilution analysis to prioritise action.
Consolidate or differentiate based on evidence.
Connect internal linking to the preferred page owner.
Refresh useful pages before creating replacements.
Automate production only after editorial rules are established.
Measure visibility share, conversions and workflow efficiency.

If you are building a publishing operation rather than ordering isolated articles, open SEO Letters and test the workflow against your own site. Set a topic, define the destination, establish the cadence and review the research before the first campaign runs. If you need a contact path, use the rightbar to discuss your publishing requirements, content architecture and cannibalisation concerns.

A stronger content programme does not come from adding more URLs without control. It comes from knowing which page should rank, why it deserves to rank and how every new article supports that decision.