Have you been working hard for months, even publishing a hundred or two hundred articles, but your website traffic is still as still as a pond?
About 76% of business blogs produce over 100 articles per year, but more than half fail to bring significant traffic growth (Source: HubSpot Blog data)
The core problem often lies in “low content quality”—they fail to truly hit the searcher’s needs, or the information provided is too superficial.
Lack of depth, information too shallow
For example, you wrote an article about “how to learn English,” but it’s full of generic advice like “memorize more words” and “watch more American TV shows” with nothing new. After reading, users might think: “I already know this.”
Let’s look at the data: According to Semrush’s analysis of low-traffic content, approximately 62% of underperforming articles’ biggest problem is insufficient information.
Many articles look like they’re written with 1000 words, but the core information points might only be one or two.
We’ve seen many websites publish dozens of articles under a single popular keyword (like “yoga for beginners”), but the articles are highly repetitive.
Each article only stays at the basic concepts and pose names, without diving into “why this pose is effective,” “common mistakes to avoid,” “specific plan for the first week for beginners”—the details readers really want to dig into.
Why is shallow information so difficult to get traffic?
If your article only repeats basic information available everywhere online (like “regular exercise is good for health,” “you need to optimize website speed”)
but doesn’t tell readers ”how exactly to do it?”, “why does this work?”, “which method worked best in my experience?” — this kind of deep information
Users will only feel “oh, I see” after reading, then close the page and never come back.
The data speaks for itself:
- Search behavior changes: Google Trends data shows that search volume for “How to…” type queries seeking specific guidance grows over 15% year over year, while basic concept searches (“What is…”) are stagnant. This indicates users now want not just ABC, but advanced solutions.
- Poor page performance: Many website analytics tools (like Semrush, Ahrefs) report that articles with bounce rates over 75% and dwell time under 1 minute—over 60% are because the core content doesn’t exceed what users already know, failing to provide “incremental value.”
- Repetitive wasted effort: We saw a real example: a tech review website stacked 30+ articles under keywords like “2024 phone buying guide,” each with similar structure explaining processor, screen specs, basic brand comparisons. After half a year, all these articles combined traffic was still less than a competitor’s single in-depth article dissecting “Real battery life comparison across different price tiers (with actual test data charts)” — a treasure trove of information. This kind of repetition and shallow coverage is a massive waste of resources.
How to judge if your content is “shallow”?
Only “what it is,” no “how to do it” or “why”:
- Example 1: Write “website speed is important.” (Shallow!) → Up to standard: “We tested: enabling Brotli compression on the server side can reduce page weight by 15-20%, recommended tool is Cloudflare setup tutorial…”
- Example 2: Write “content needs depth.” (Shallow! It’s just talking about the very point we’re discussing now!) → Up to standard: “3 practical methods to increase content depth: 1) Use AnswerThePublic to find users’ specific questions; 2) Add case studies/data sources for each viewpoint (tool: Statista); 3) Add comparison reviews (e.g., effect difference table of Method A vs Method B in different scenarios)”.
Information pile-up without focus: Articles read like run-on logs, piecing together a bunch of scattered points (possibly copied from different articles), but lacking a clear main thread, without progressive problem analysis → solution → actual verification. Users finish reading but can’t grasp the key points, feeling like they read nothing.
Lacking exclusive insights or real experiences: Content is mostly copied and compiled from publicly available online information, without adding your own (or your team’s) practical experience, test data, lessons learned, or innovative viewpoints. This causes “homogenization”—why should Google rank you above others?
Dare not “offend anyone” or draw conclusions: To appear “comprehensive,” content is too neutral, listing various possibilities but not daring to clearly recommend which method is best, which product suits which type of users. Users want clear, actionable guidance, not ambiguous nonsense.
Practical methods to “add substance” to content
Proactively mine “information gaps”:
- Tools: Google Keyword Planner (free) / SEMrush “Keyword Gap”.
- Method: Search your target keyword, see what the top 10 results on Google’s first page (SERP) are about. Focus on their comment sections or forum discussions (like Reddit related boards) — what do users complain existing articles “didn’t explain clearly”? “What questions are still unanswered”? These are your “breakthrough points for depth.”
- Real case: A blogger writing about “coffee machine buying guide” found that all top 10 SERPs were talking about brands and basic features. But when she browsed Reddit discussions, she discovered the high-frequency question was “How to consistently achieve café-quality coffee at home with a home coffee machine?” So she wrote an article with the core being “Tested: XX model + water hardness adjustment + precise grind size = 90% commercial flavor reproduction,” with details including test data and parameter adjustment methods, quickly rising to #1 ranking. This “information gap” is your depth value area.
Structurally deepen with “5W2H”: When facing a topic, force yourself to answer all 7 questions:
- What? (What is it? Define clearly, but don’t stop here!)
- Why? (Why is it important? Cite research data/user pain point data)
- Who? (Who is it for? Segmented scenarios: beginners/experts, office workers/students)
- When? (When is the best time? Timing/frequency)
- Where? (Where to do it? Applicable platforms/environments)
- How? (How to do it? Step-by-step guide, clear screenshots/videos)
- How much/many? (Quantify cost/time/results)
- You don’t need to fill every point, but the core How? and Why? (with data) must be deepened thoroughly.
Introduce “evidence” and “comparisons”:
Add data: Even if it’s a small test. You say a certain method is fast, write “Tested: Using YY tool saves 45 minutes compared to manual operation”. Don’t have conditions to test? Cite authoritative reports (Statista, Pew Research, official white papers), note the source and date.
Make comparisons: “Method A vs Method B” is a natural depth catalyst. Don’t just list pros and cons tables, show actual performance differences in real environments (e.g.: “Method A installs faster on blogs with <1000 traffic; Method B has better stability on e-commerce sites with >10k traffic, see three-month server log comparison chart”). This kind of differentiated insight is what users really need.
Design “action checklists” / “checklists”:
At the end of articles (or even in the middle), include a checklist readers can directly download or follow after reading. For example: “Self-checklist for improving content depth: 1) Does it clearly solve an unanswered SERP question? 2) Does it include at least one specific step? 3) Does it embed at least one piece of exclusive data/experience?…” This is not only a summary, but gives users an action anchor, enhancing page value and dwell time (Google values this highly).
Misaligned with user search intent
Search intent, simply put, is what users really want when they type that word into Google, what specific needs are unspoken behind it.
Google itself says: The same keyword (like “iPhone 15”) can have vastly different intents—some just want to see pictures (informational), some want specific specs (research), some are comparing prices ready to buy (commercial), and some want to solve a specific problem (problem-solving). If you use the same “iPhone 15 comprehensive review” to address all intents, the effect will definitely be diluted.
How many types of search intent are there?
Want to know what it is? (Informational)
- Manifestation: Search “what does metaverse mean?”, “2024 Nobel Prize winners,” “what are cold symptoms”. Users just want to quickly understand a concept, fact, or news.
- Content needs: Clear definitions, concise explanations, images/videos to aid understanding. Avoid long essays or selling.
- Data support: HubSpot analysis reports indicate approximately 40% of searches are purely informational.
Want to solve a problem? (Navigational / Transactional)
- Manifestation: Search “Apple official website,” “XX bank login,” “which Nike running shoe model is lightest?”, “Sanya five-star hotel with private pool”. Users have strong purposes, either wanting to go to a specific website/app, or seriously comparing to spend money.
- Content needs: Directly provide official entry links, in-depth product/service comparisons (specs, prices, pros and cons, real reviews), buying guides/discount info. Never hide or redirect to irrelevant pages.
- Data support: Think with Google data shows that for searches with purchase intent, users on average view more than 10 pieces of information before deciding.
Want to learn how to do something? (Transactional / How-to)
- Manifestation: This is a gold mine! Search “how to recover deleted phone photos?”, “how to print Excel headers on every page?”, “how to fix a leak at home myself?”. Users are in trouble, wanting clear, actionable solutions they can follow.
- Content needs: Must be detailed steps! Step-by-step guides (Step 1, Step 2…), clear images/screenshots, video demos, tool lists needed, common mistakes to avoid. Talking theory without practice is just nonsense.
- Data support: Backlinko research found that articles with clear step-by-step guides rank on average 30% higher in Google’s “How-to” searches.
Want to decide what to buy? (Commercial Investigation)
- Manifestation: Search “iPhone 15 vs Pixel 8 camera comparison,” “best home 4K projector recommendations,” “XX insurance pros and cons analysis”.
- Content needs: In-depth comparison reviews! Core spec tables, real usage experiences (battery life, stability, etc.), pros and cons summaries, applicable crowd suggestions. Only listing pros without cons makes users think it’s an ad.
- Data support: Ahrefs data shows that commercial keywords (with “vs”, “review”, “best”) typically have the fiercest competition but also convert high-value users most easily.
Why does your content always “miss the mark”? Where’s the problem?
Assuming intent based on guesswork, not looking at actual search data:
- Fail point: You think users searching “yoga” want to learn poses (How-to), but the top 3 SERPs are all “nearby yoga studio discounts” (Commercial). Not checking Google before writing will definitely lead you astray.
- Data manifestation: If your target keyword in Search Console has click-through rate (CTR) below 1% or high impressions but few clicks, the intent is most likely wrong, title/description doesn’t attract the people who truly want to search for it.
Content like a “hotchpotch,” trying to fit all intents in one:
- Fail point: An article about “air fryers” has the first half explaining principles (informational), middle with some recipes (How-to), then forcefully inserts product purchase links at the end (commercial). Intent is confused, users can’t find what they want so they leave.
- Data manifestation: High bounce rate (>80%) and low dwell time (<30 seconds). Means users opened it, saw it wasn’t what they wanted, and instantly left.
Keyword seems related, but doesn’t capture the real “problem” behind it:
- Fail point: User searches “coffee machine descaling,” you write a long article about coffee machine structure and maintenance importance (informational), but the core “what descaling agent to use,” “specific operation video” is barely mentioned. What users want to solve is the urgent problem of “water scale clogging and no water coming out, what to do”!
- Data manifestation: Keyword ranking is okay but conversion rate is extremely low (e.g.: nobody subscribes, nobody clicks on guide downloads). Content fails to solve the core pain point.
Language too “vague” or too “technical,” not speaking human:
- Fail point: Writing “achieving financial freedom requires optimizing asset allocation strategies” for regular users, when what users actually want to search is “how to save money on 5000 yuan monthly income”. Or writing beauty tutorials in academic paper style under Xiaohongshu-style keywords.
- Data manifestation: Compared to articles ranking in SERPs, your language style or terminology usage is completely different, naturally not well-received by users and Google.
Solutions
Step 1: Google your target keyword, treat the top 10 as “reference answers”
- Focus on: What types are the top-ranking articles? (Lists? Tutorials? Comparisons? Buying guides?)
- Pay special attention: Google’s own “Featured Snippets” or “People Also Ask”. These are Google-officially certified “most concerning questions of users,” intent is written all over them! For example, when you search “coffee machine descaling,” the Featured Snippet is a step list, you must put clear steps front and center!
- Free tool: Search Console Coverage report. See what actual search terms users used to find your pages (even those you didn’t specifically optimize for)—these are the gold mines of real intent.
Step 2: Deeply mine the “subtext” users don’t explicitly say
- Tool combo:
- Google’s “Related searches”: After typing your target keyword in the search box, scroll to the bottom of the page, see Google’s recommended related queries.
- AnswerThePublic: Free version, input keyword, generates a large number of actual user questions (with Who/What/When/Why/How), directly exposing users’ specific problem points (intent).
- Reddit / Xiaohongshu / Zhihu related topic areas: Look at real users’ discussions, complaints, questions. For example, under the “air fryer” topic on Zhihu, high-upvote answers focus on “hard to clean,” so you know “how to clean air fryers” is a strong demand (How-to intent).
- Practical tips: When you see many searches containing “how,” “what,” “steps,” “why,” “solutions,” “which is better,” “vs,” “recommendations”—the intent is clear. Extract these verbs/question words, map them to the four intent types above.
Step 3: Customize your content “structure” and “tone” based on intent type
- Targeting informational: Start directly with definitions + key point infographics. Format: opening “Simply put, XX is…,” middle sections with bullet points, end with extended reading links. No selling! No ads!
- Targeting How-to: Opening hits the user’s specific problem (e.g., “Troubled by accidentally deleted phone photos?”), immediately followed by “Follow these 6 steps, recover photos in 5 minutes”, then steps 12345 (with screenshots!), end with FAQ Q&A. Steps are the core!
- Targeting commercial: Put comparison tables at the top to grab attention! Clearly list “Product A vs Product B vs Product C” specs, tested pros and cons (must mention cons!), applicable crowds (e.g., “beginners choose A, enthusiasts choose B”), purchase channels/price comparisons. Don’t be afraid to mention shortcomings—authority comes from objectivity.
- Targeting navigational/transactional: Direct links + latest info (e.g., “Official website direct link,” “2024 latest discount codes”). Information must be accurate and current—expired discounts equal deceptive clicks.
After writing, ask yourself
- If I searched “XXX” (target keyword), would I be looking for this type of content?
- Does the title opening contain clear intent verbs? (e.g., “How to…”, “… solutions”, “… buying guide”)
- Can the core solution/info be delivered in the first three screens (without scrolling)? Don’t make users search forever!
Poor readability and structure, content too messy
Don’t underestimate content layout and writing—this is often the last straw that kills traffic.
Imagine: You tap open an article about “2024 credit card selection guide” on your phone, but the first screen is dense text with no breaks, no bold, key points hidden in long paragraphs you have to dig for—don’t you instantly want to close it? Users are just that “ruthless.”
Google itself is adjusting algorithms: Over 60% of search traffic comes from mobile, on small screens, chaotic layout is a disaster. Google explicitly lists “page experience” (including loading speed, readability, interaction) as a ranking factor.
If your content makes reading exhausting, Google won’t promote you.
Why does “messiness” directly kill traffic?
User patience = zero, 3 seconds to decide: Users tap open a page, glance (really just one glance), if they can’t find “what is this about? what’s in it for me?”—a clear signal, they instantly close.
Google Analytics statistics show that the probability of closing within 10 seconds of page load exceeds 50%. Unclear content structure, deeply hidden information equals actively inviting users to click “Back.”
Google can’t read it, rankings can’t go up: Google crawlers (programs that index your content) are essentially “machine readers.” They prefer structurally clear pages (with clear H1/H2 title tags, moderate paragraph length, reasonable keyword distribution).
Mobile experience is terrible: Think about how you scroll content on your phone: narrow screen, vertical swiping, possibly noisy environment. At this time, encountering:
- ”Mega” paragraphs: A single paragraph exceeding 4 lines (on phone screens might fill the entire screen or more), reading feels suffocating.
- No visual emphasis: Whole article in black and white gray, no bold, no lists, no images to divide attention.
- Vague headings: Subtitles written as “Important principles,” “Key steps”—what exactly? Users still have to dig through a wall of text themselves.
This kind of experience—users don’t run away才是怪。 Google reports: if core information can’t appear within 3 seconds on mobile pages, 53% of users leave immediately.
Where is your content “messy”?
“One paragraph to the end” suffocating writing:
- Symptoms: Continuous 300 or even 500 words without breaks, a wall of dense text.
- Consequences: Tremendous visual pressure for users, core information buried. Nielsen Norman eye-tracking experiments clearly show: users’ gaze follows an “F-shaped” rapid scan—the area below the middle of long paragraphs is almost untouched! The “quality content” you wrote in the latter half might as well not exist.
- Data correlation: Content management tools (like Clearscope) note that pages exceeding 150 words without paragraph breaks see average reading completion rates drop by 35%.
“Headling maze” makes no sense.
- Symptoms:
- Headings too general: “Strategic analysis,” “Optimization methods.”
- Headings too literary: “Clouds roll, investments talk” (who knows what you’re talking about?).
- Heading hierarchy confused: H2 looks more important than H1.
- Consequences: Users scanning headings can’t quickly locate the information block they need, Google crawlers also struggle to precisely capture topics.
- Root problem: Headings are not for looking good, but to use the most straightforward language to preview what this section is about. Not doing this is a failure.
Verbose language, tangled sentences:
- Symptoms:
- A single sentence containing 3-4 commas, parentheses, dashes, subject and object too far apart (e.g.: “Given the current complex international environment and the trend of domestic economy gradually stabilizing and recovering after first quarter fluctuations, we (as an institution focused on long-term value investment) believe…”).
- Piling up technical terms/abbreviations without explanation (e.g., people unfamiliar with SEO see “SERP,” “CWV” and are confused).
- Long sentence count exceeds standard: When tested with tools like Hemingway App, sentences exceeding 25 words pile up.
- Consequences: Increases reader cognitive load, must read multiple times to understand. If readers can’t understand in one read, they lose patience.
- Research support: Readability research consistently shows that when average words per sentence exceed 20, comprehension difficulty rises significantly.
Lacking visual guidance “signs”:
- Symptoms: No
- Bullet point lists (• / – / 1. 2. 3.): for listing parallel points.
- Numbered step lists (Step 1:… Step 2:…): for operation guides.
- Bold key information (but not abused, only emphasizing core terms).
- Supporting images/charts/infographics: To visualize complex concepts.
- Clear tables: To make comparison data clear at a glance.
- Consequences: Users can only use the most primitive method of “scanning the entire article,” unable to use visual cues to quickly locate key points—efficiency is extremely low.
Solutions
Forced “short paragraphs + clear subheadings” golden combination:
- Rule: On desktop, one paragraph shouldn’t exceed 3-4 lines (ideal 50-120 words); on mobile, no more than 2-3 lines!
- How to write headings? Use the simplest language to summarize this section’s core. Heading openings should include core keywords or question phrasing (matching user search habits):
- Bad: “Basic principles” -> Good: “3 core principles for beginners learning finance” or “How to avoid common financial pitfalls? (3 steps)”
- Bad: “Operation method” -> Good: “Phone photo recovery guide (5-step illustrated)”
- Heading levels shouldn’t be chaotic: H1 (article title) -> H2 (first-level major points, most important! 3-5 per article) -> H3 (sub-points under H2). H2 headings are the skeleton, must be clear and powerful!
- SEO benefits: Clear H2 headings directly tell Google crawlers “this H2 section is about XXX topic keyword,” significantly improving relevance scores.
Embrace “lazy layout”: lists, bold, whitespace are friends:
- Scenario 1: Parallel items/pros-cons lists -> Use bullet lists果断 (ul/li code structure):
- Bad: Article writes: “There are multiple methods to improve content depth: First, deeply explore user problems; second, add specific data support; third, provide practical operation steps.”
- Good: List directly:
- Deeply explore user problems: Use AnswerThePublic to find real questions.
- Add specific data support: Cite research or practical data (e.g.: “Tested, this method improves conversion by 22%”).
- Provide practical operation steps: Write steps 123 clearly using numbered lists.
- Scenario 2: Operation steps -> Must use numbered ordered lists (ol/li code structure)!
- Visual emphasis: Only bold the most core words or short phrases (e.g.: method names, key result data, core warnings). Never bold entire sentences! That defeats the purpose.
- Whitespace: Leave space between paragraphs, between points (using
tags), giving eyes a rest. Crowded text diminishes value.
“Short sentences are king,” cut language tangles:
- Check immediately after writing:
- Use active voice over passive (bad: “The plan was verified by our team” -> good: “Our team verified the plan”);
- Delete meaningless modifiers (“very,” “extremely,” “basically”);
- When you see many “de,” “le,” “and,” see if you can split sentences.
- Tools: Put the article into Hemingway Editor (free online version). It will highlight:
- Super long difficult sentences (red/yellow highlight): Goal is to reduce difficulty to “middle school” or “high school” level (this level covers 90% of internet users).
- Adverb overusage (blue highlight).
- Passive voice (green highlight).
- Goal: Keep the whole piece clean with yellow and green, eliminate dark red markers.
Important! Mobile-first preview:
- Must-do before publishing: Use your phone (or Chrome DevTools switch to mobile view), actually see what the article looks like on mobile.
- Key checks:
- Does the first 100 characters (mobile first screen) quickly introduce the topic?
- Are H2 headings clear and powerful enough to be immediately clear on narrow screens?
- Are there paragraphs that look like “a black ribbon” filling the screen? If yes, split them!
- Are key buttons (like “Download template”) easy to tap on mobile?
- Data support: Google Search Console’s “Mobile Usability Report” is a treasure trove, specifically reporting page issues affecting mobile users (e.g., text too small, clickable elements too close together), fixing these issues directly helps rankings.
What Google loves most is always content that clearly, directly, and without折腾 solves users’ real problems.
