Keyword Cannibalization - Opportunity or Problem?

Keyword cannibalization was, and still is, perceived as a problem rather than an opportunity. Why? Because - simply put - it is "URL collision for the same keyword". This phenomenon can manifest itself in two ways:

• in the first scenario, on one day Google displays page A for a given key phrase,
  the next day page B, etc.
• the second scenario, more beneficial and often even desired by advertisers, is displaying several subpages of the website for the same phrase on a single Google search results page.

Most SEO specialists cite the following as the main reasons for combating keyword cannibalization:

• lack of results,
• the possibility of dropping positions.

Why?

The graphic below perfectly illustrates the phenomenon of keyword cannibalization from the perspective of Google bots:

source: "The Art of SEO. Mastering Search Engine Optimization".

When dealing with keyword cannibalization, Google bots cannot "decide" which subpage should be displayed for a given key phrase. As a consequence, various URLs optimized for a specific phrase may be displayed, but - not always the ones the advertiser cares about. Besides, it has long been known that Google is fickle, meaning that virtually overnight the algorithm's preferences can change (e.g., as a result of an update) and for some reason a different subpage will start ranking - one that is less important from our perspective.

This briefly summarizes the opinion of most specialists on keyword cannibalization. And this is where Patrick Stox steps in - SEO specialist at IBM, organizer of the Raleigh SEO Meetup, columnist for searchengineland.com. In his latest article, he sheds new light on the perception of the keyword cannibalization phenomenon. Above all, Stox tries to fight the negative perception of cannibalization and disagrees with the most common arguments of its opponents.

According to the author, the key to success is the proper INTENT/GOAL of the page.

"Intent is key here."

If there is no content on the page, or it is only informational content modeled on Wikipedia articles, the chance of the page appearing in the rankings is slim.

A single glance at Google Search Console is enough to see that websites rank for a large number of terms - significantly more than those they are intentionally promoted for.

Let's assume that page A ranks for 400 different terms, and page B for 600. Some of them probably overlap, even though both the content and the intent of these pages are different. There will certainly be a pool of terms unique to page A, those unique to page B, but there will also be a pool of shared words, and which URL will be displayed for a given query depends precisely on intent.

As an example and confirmation of his observations, Patrick Stox cites the search ranking for the term "technical SEO". The choice was not accidental because less than a month earlier Stox had published the article "What's next for technical SEO?", an opinion piece on the future of search engine optimization and technical issues related to SEO. Back then, the author noticed that two other articles published on Search Engine Land were ranking for this phrase. One of them was an audit and the other a type of checklist, while the newest article, whose title strongly correlated with the phrase, was missing.

Based on these results, Stox noticed that Google assigned an informational intent to the phrase "technical SEO". The fact that the mentioned article did not show up for the main phrase does not mean that it will not appear for other combinations of it. It also does not mean that the article does not appear at all for the main phrase "technical SEO" - it's just that at that moment Google showed results that were more relevant according to the bots.

Due to the way the algorithm works, Google usually limits the number of results coming from a single domain. By adding the command "&filter=0" to the end of the URL, we can force Google to show additional results (when testing this solution, it is worth keeping in mind that it is not perfect and sometimes causes errors). After removing the filters, you can actually see that the article ranks for the main phrase:

So what next with this knowledge?

Of course, we can trust that Google recognizes the intent of our pages exceptionally well and will handle choosing the appropriate subpage for a given search result perfectly. Nevertheless, the experiences of most industry peers (who, of course, were willing to share their insights on this topic) make us approach this phenomenon cautiously and treat it as a threat rather than an opportunity. A minor exception here is Zgred, who points out in one of his articles that it does not always make sense to fight cannibalization, especially when dealing with online stores:

"It is worth paying attention to online stores that offer several products that differ, for example, in color, size, or another feature. The description of such a product is usually the same - please show me any copywriter who will be able to produce several different descriptions of, for example, electrical sockets, light switches, windshield wipers, an iron... It is simply unrealistic."

Quote source: https://seo.zgred.pl/kanibalizacja-slow-kluczowych-seo-zlo-ktore-pieknosci-szkodzi-3921

According to Stox, however, the occurrence of this phenomenon can actually be a kind of opportunity. What did the author mean? Do not treat the subpages of your website that appear for the same keywords as competitors. Turn off the filters, see what is indexing in Google, and then consolidate the pages if it makes sense, of course. As long as the intent of the pages is the same and the texts are similar, consolidation will certainly provide a better result.

Want to check if keyword cannibalization affects your domain? One of the tools that illustrates this phenomenon is: semrush.com

Good luck implementing your SEO strategies!

Sour Source: https://searchengineland.com/what-people-get-wrong-about-keyword-cannibalization-292148