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
-
Free tool, and it ranks well for adult sites and checking if they are down, will that hurt us with ranking for normal sites with google?
Hi all, We rank for searches around "is youporn down" and similar because we provide a free tool to check if a website is up or down: https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/youporn I am worried that ranking for these adult searches is hurting us with ranking for things like "is reddit down", thoughts? I'd appreciate some input!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bwb0 -
Is this considered duplicate content?
Hi Guys, We have a blog for our e-commerce store. We have a full-time in-house writer producing content. As part of our process, we do content briefs, and as part of the brief we analyze competing pieces of content existing on the web. Most of the time, the sources are large publications (i.e HGTV, elledecor, apartmenttherapy, Housebeautiful, NY Times, etc.). The analysis is basically a summary/breakdown of the article, and is sometimes 2-3 paragraphs long for longer pieces of content. The competing content analysis is used to create an outline of our article, and incorporates most important details/facts from competing pieces, but not all. Most of our articles run 1500-3000 words. Here are the questions: NOTE: the summaries are written by us, and not copied/pasted from other websites. Would it be considered duplicate content, or bad SEO practice, if we list sources/links we used at the bottom of our blog post, with the summary from our content brief? Could this be beneficial as far as SEO? If we do this, should be nofollow the links, or use regular dofollow links? For example: For your convenience, here are some articles we found helpful, along with brief summaries: <summary>I want to use as much of the content that we have spent time on. TIA</summary>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | kekepeche1 -
On the use of Disavow tool / Have I done it correctly, or what's wrong with my perception?
On a site I used GSA search engine ranker. Now, I got good links out of it. But, also got 4900 links from one domain. And, I thought according to ahrefs. One link from the one domain is equal to 4900 links from one domain. So, I downloaded links those 4900 and added 4899 links to disavow tool. To disavow, to keep my site stable at rankings and safe from any future penalty. Is that a correct way to try disavow tool? The site rankings are as it is.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AMTrends0 -
Negative SEO and when to use to Dissavow tool?
Hi guys I was hoping someone could help me on a problem that has arisen on the site I look after. This is my first SEO job and I’ve had it about 6 months now. I think I’ve been doing the right things so far building quality links from reputable sites with good DA and working with bloggers to push our products as well as only signing up to directories in our niche. So our backlink profile is very specific with few spammy links. Over the last week however we have received a huge increase in backlinks which has almost doubled our linking domains total. I’ve checked the links out from webmaster tools and they are mainly directories or webstat websites like the ones below | siteinfo.org.uk deperu.com alestat.com domaintools.com detroitwebdirectory.com ukdata.com stuffgate.com | We’ve also just launched a new initiative where we will be producing totally new and good quality content 4-5 times a week and many of these new links are pointing to that page which looks very suspicious to me. Does this look like negative Seo to anyone? I’ve read a lot about the disavow tool and it seems people’s opinions are split on when to use it so I was wondering if anyone had any advice on whether to use it or not? It’s easy for me to identify what these new links are, yet some of them have decent DA so will they do any harm anyway? I’ve also checked the referring anchors on Ahrefs and now over 50% of my anchor term cloud are totally unrelated terms to my site and this has happened over the last week which also worries me. I haven’t seen any negative impact on rankings yet but if this carries on it will destroy my link profile. So would it be wise to disavow all these links as they come through or wait to see if they actually have an impact? It should be obvious to Google that there has been a huge spike in links so then the question is would they be ignored or will I be penalised. Any ideas? Thanks in advance Richard
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Rich_9950 -
Duplicate content or not? If you're using abstracts from external sources you link to
I was wondering if a page (a blog post, for example) that offers links to external web pages along with abstracts from these pages would be considered duplicate content page and therefore penalized by Google. For example, I have a page that has very little original content (just two or three sentences that summarize or sometimes frame the topic) followed by five references to different external sources. Each reference contains a title, which is a link, and a short abstract, which basically is the first few sentences copied from the page it links to. So, except from a few sentences in the beginning everything is copied from other pages. Such a page would be very helpful for people interested in the topic as the sources it links to had been analyzed before, handpicked and were placed there to enhance user experience. But will this format be considered duplicate or near-duplicate content?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | romanbond0 -
Multiple domains different content same keywords
what would you advice on my case: It is bad for google if i have the four domains. I dont link between them as i dont want no association, or loss in rakings in branded page. Is bad if i link between them or the non branded to them branded domain. Is bad if i have all on my webmaster tools, i just have the branded My google page is all about the new non penalized domain. altough google gave a unique domain +propdental to the one that he manually penalized. (doesn't make sense) So. What are the thinks that i should not do with my domain to follow and respect google guidelines. As i want a white hat and do not do something that is wrong without knowledge
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Duplicate Content due to Panda update!
I can see that a lot of you are worrying about this new Panda update just as I am! I have such a headache trying to figure this one out, can any of you help me? I have thousands of pages that are "duplicate content" which I just can't for the life of me see how... take these two for example: http://www.eteach.com/Employer.aspx?EmpNo=18753 http://www.eteach.com/Employer.aspx?EmpNo=31241 My campaign crawler is telling me these are duplicate content pages because of the same title (which that I can see) and because of the content (which I can't see). Can anyone see how Google is interpreting these two pages as duplicate content?? Stupid Panda!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Eteach_Marketing0 -
Showing pre-loaded content cloaking?
Hi everyone, another quick question. We have a number of different resources available for our users that load dynamically as the user scrolls down the page (like Facebook's Timeline) with the aim of improving page load time. Would it be considered cloaking if we had Google bot index a version of the page with all available content that would load for the user if he/she scrolled down to the bottom?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CuriosityMedia0