Are online tools considered thin content?
-
My website has a number of simple converters.
For example, this one converts spaces to commas
https://convert.town/replace-spaces-with-commasNow, obviously there are loads of different variations I could create of this:
Replace spaces with semicolons
Replace semicolons with tabs
Replace fullstops with commasSimilarly with files:
JSON to XML
XML to PDF
JPG to PNG
JPG to TIF
JPG to PDF
(and thousands more)If somoene types one of those into Google, they will be happy because they can immediately use the tool they were hunting for.
It is obvious what these pages do so I do not want to clutter the page up with unnecessary content.
However, would these be considered doorway pages or thin content or would it be acceptable (from an SEO perspective) to generate 1000s of pages based on all the permutations?
-
Ah - sorry for my misunderstanding. So you are leaning towards combining the pages.
So unit-conversion.info has a combined page: http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html
When I search for "convert from micro to deci", they appear as number 8. If I click on their page, it defaults to base and mega, so I then have to change the dropdowns.
The number 1 result for that search is this page https://www.unitconverters.net/prefixes/micro-to-deci.htm - it has Micro and Deci preselected.
unit-conversion.info only has 460 but Unitconverters.net has 50,000 pages indexed by Google. Despite the "thin content", they still appear number 1 (admittedly, this may be due to other factors).
As far as user experience goes, I would prefer to land on unitconverters.net because I have less things to click.
I guess the art is in finding the sweet spot in being able to give a search result with context without spinning out too much thin content.
Thanks again for your detailed response!
-
Hi again,
sorry if I have not expressed myself very well.
In my opinion, you would have only 1 page for each of those tools (with all the conversion options), and along the text of that page (+ title & meta description), there would be optimized the generic keywords like "replace character tool", "replace characters online"... and the conversion specific ones like "replace space with columns", without abusing to avoid keyword stuffing / spam.
The same for the Convert Image Tool, just one page, like this people did: unit-conversion.info with the conversion text tool and all the others.
More pages than that would surely create thin content and would divide the authority between all that pages instead of having all that authory in 1 quality page that optimizes along text and metas the most searched of the conversion options of each tool.
In any case, if you create additional pages for the most commonly searched-for variants (just a few), that could be acceptable as you said.
Greetings!
-
Yes I was thinking along the same lines - if I create a page for commonly searched-for variants, then that will be an acceptable "thin page".
OK, so if I understand correctly, you would suggest having one generic "replace text" page. The phrase variants - "replace character tool", "replace characters online", "replace text tool", should appear throughout that same page (not on separate pages).
The following SEPARATE pages would have the find / replace textboxes of the generic converter prefilled (because they are commonly searched for):
- Replace spaces with columns
- Replace spaces with semicolons
- Replace semicolons with spaces
- Replace and with &
...and all other common but relevant search phrases
But you would NOT create a separate page for:
- Replace question mark with space
- Replace the letter t with the letter b
Does that sound right to you?
Then for the Convert Image tool, wouldn't it be best (in a similar fashion) to have one generic tool but then the common searches prefilled on separate pages:
- Convert image to image
- Convert Image to GIF
- Convert PNG to JPG
- Convert PNG to GIF
(and perhaps 100 others)
Each of these tools are different in functionality and will be more helpful to the user if they are prefilled with what they are looking for?
-
So I guess that is actually my argument - that each tool deserves its own page (if it is something commonly searched for). The user experience is not as good if they search for "convert spaces to semicolons", then land on a page where they have to also enter a space and a semicolon before they get what they want. If these are prefilled, surely the user would prefer that. Will Google realise that users prefer that though? That is the big question.
OK - if I don't fill the page with spam, then it won't be considered a gateway page.
Thank you for your response.
-
Hi
It's a difficult question.
By one side, it would be interesting for the searcher to have directly access to the tool with the exact function they are looking for.
By the other, many functions are very similar and they will surely have very similar content that doesn't provide new interesting information (thin content).
I think you should go for the point between this sides. I mean, you can create many different tools, but tools that group all similar functions.
For example:
Replace Character Tool (you can replace with this any character or text by any other). Here you have an example of this tool: http://www.unit-conversion.info/texttools/replace-text/. In this tool you can moderately optimize all the keywords related to the different functions, by mentioning them on the text, h1-h2-h3, or in the Title / Meta Description. Don't try to optimize all different variants because there are too much. Go for the most searched ones (use Google Keyword Planner or a similar tool to identify them). You should also optimize the variants of "replace character tool" like "replace characters online" or "replace text tool", (important to also use "free" if the tools are free)
The same for image conversion with Convert Image Tool ("online picture conversion" + "free convert img tool"... + most popular img format conversion like "png to jpg conversion tool"), all in the same page.
Hope that helps!
-
Hi there,
My personal recommendation here, if possible, would be to compile all of the tools into one easy to use page. So all of the file converting permutations would be under one page and all of the 'replace' tools will be under another page.
Not only would this be better user experience but also you wouldn't clog up your site with thin pages from the multiple permutations of the pages.
You could of course argue that each tool deserves its own page because technically they each do different things.
What would make any one of these pages into a gateway page is if you bulked them out with a large amount of content that was specifically designed for search engines.
I hope this helps to answer your question
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Without prerender.io, is google able to render & index geographical dynamic content?
One section of our website is built as a single page application and serves dynamic content based on geographical location. Before I got here, we had used prerender.io so google can see the page, but now that prerender.io is gone, is google able to render & index geographical dynamic content? I'm assuming no. If no is the answer, what are some solutions other than converting everything to html (would be a huge overhaul)?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | imjonny1231 -
Does Duplicate Content Actually "Penalize" a Domain?
Hi all, Some co-workers and myself were in a conversation this afternoon regarding if duplicate content actually causes a penalty on your domain. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359?hl=en http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-duplicate-content-wont-hurt-you-unless-it-is-spammy-167459 Both sources from Google do not say "duplicate content causes a penalty." However, they do allude to spammy content negatively affecting a website. Why it came up: We originally were talking about syndicated content (same content across multiple domains; ex: "5 explanations of bad breath") for the purpose of social media sharing. Imagine if dentists across the nation had access to this piece of content (5 explanations of bad breath) simply for engagement with their audience. They would use this to post on social media & to talk about in the office. But they would not want to rank for that piece of duplicated content. This type of duplicated content would be valuable to dentists in different cities that need engagement with their audience or simply need the content. This is all hypothetical but serious at the same time. I would love some feedback & sourced information / case studies. Is duplicated content actually penalized or will that piece of content just not rank? (feel free to reference that example article as a real world example). **When I say penalized, I mean "the domain is given a negative penalty for showing up in SERPS" - therefore, the website would not rank for "dentists in san francisco, ca". That is my definition of penalty (feel free to correct if you disagree). Thanks all & look forward to a fun, resourceful conversation on duplicate content for the other purposes outside of SEO. Cole
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ColeLusby0 -
Are links on a press page considered "reciprocal linking"?
Hi, We have a press page with a list of links to the articles that have mentioned us (most of which also have a link to our website). Is there any SEO impact with this approach? Does Google consider these reciprocal links? And if so, would making the links on the press page 'nofollow' solve the issue?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mikekeeper0 -
Disabling a slider with content...is considered cloaking?
We have a slider on our site www.cannontrading.com, but the owner didn't like it, so I disabled it. And, each slider contains link & content as well. We had another SEO guy tell me it considered cloaking. Is this True? Please give feedbacks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ACann0 -
Would reviews being served to a search engine user agent through a noscript tag (but not shown for other user types) be considered cloaking?
This one is tough, and I've asked it once here, http://www.quora.com/Search-Engine-Optimization-SEO/Is-having-rich-snippets-placed-below-a-review-that-is-pulled-via-javascript-considered-bad-grey-hat-SEO, but I feel that the response was sided with the company. As an SEO or digital marketer, it seems that if we are pulling in our reviews via iframe for our users, but serving them through a nonscript tag when the user agent is a search engine, that this could be considered cloaking. I understand that the "intent" may be to show the same thing to the bots as the user sees, but if you look at the view source, you'll never see the reviews, because it would only be delivered to the search engine bot. What do you think?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | eTundra0 -
Noindexing Thin Content Pages: Good or Bad?
If you have massive pages with super thin content (such as pagination pages) and you noindex them, once they are removed from googles index (and if these pages aren't viewable to the user and/or don't get any traffic) is it smart to completely remove them (404?) or is there any valid reason that they should be kept? If you noindex them, should you keep all URLs in the sitemap so that google will recrawl and notice the noindex tag? If you noindex them, and then remove the sitemap, can Google still recrawl and recognize the noindex tag on their own?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Same template site same products but different content?
for the sake of this post I am selling lighters. I have 3 domains small-lighters.com medium-lighter.com large-lighters.com On all of the websites I have the same template same images etc and same products. The only difference is the way the content is worded described etc different bullet points. My domains are all strong keyword domains not spammy and bring in type in traffic. Is it ok to continue in this manner in your opinion?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | dynamic080