Case study
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Clicks | 6.1K |
| Impressions | 1.37M |
| Average CTR | 0.4% |
| Average position | 12.4 |
What this does not prove: This screenshot shows one period only. It supports reach figures, not a growth claim.
Key takeaway
This content SEO case study covers a large media and information site with a big library and a lot of thin archive pages. We pruned and merged those archives, rebuilt topic hubs, and linked supporting articles to them. The screenshot shows the reach that followed in one 3 month window, not a before and after.
The client runs a media and information site with a large library of articles. The name stays private, and this page shows only what the Search Console screenshot above supports.
Content sites fail in a different way from shops and service firms. The writing was not the main problem. Over the years, the platform had generated tag pages, category archives, and paginated lists that re-sliced the same articles many ways. Those pages had little value of their own, and they surrounded the articles that did.
When a site has many more low value pages than useful ones, Google spends time on the wrong pages and gets a weaker picture of what the site is about. Articles that could rank get crawled less often, and some are linked from almost nowhere.
Step 01
Prune and merge the thin archives
Tag and pagination pages with no value of their own were merged or kept out of the index, while still working for readers who browse.
What this finds. An index made of pages that deserve to be there.
Step 02
Rebuild topic hubs
Each main topic got a strong hub page, and supporting articles were linked into it and to each other.
What this finds. A clear structure that shows which page leads each topic.
Step 03
Reconnect orphaned articles
Useful older articles were linked back into the right hubs instead of being left alone.
What this finds. Good content that Google can reach again.
Step 04
Clean up the sitemaps
Sitemaps were rebuilt to list the pages that matter, not every generated archive.
What this finds. A clear list for Google of what to crawl first.
Pruning was careful, not sweeping. A page was removed from the index only when it had no search demand, no meaningful links, and no role in a topic. Articles with real demand were kept and re-linked. Mass deletion is one of the fastest ways to lose a content site's long tail, which is why the checks came first.
In one 3 month window of Google Search Console data, the site recorded impressions. The table above shows that period's clicks, impressions, average click through rate, and average position.
Read the four together. Impressions show reach: how often Google showed the site's pages. Average position sits near the bottom of the first page and the top of the second. At that position, click through rate is low, and the table shows that honestly rather than hiding it.
This is a picture of reach, not of a finished result. Reach comes first, because a page cannot earn clicks for searches it never appears in. Moving pages from the edge of page two onto page one is the next stage of work, through content upgrades and stronger internal links.
That next stage is slower and more specific. It means picking the pages closest to page one for searches that matter, improving what they answer, and pointing more internal links at them from the hubs. Each page gets judged on its own clicks over time, not on the site total. A large site can lift its traffic a lot from a small set of pages moving a few places, which is why the choice of pages matters more than the volume of new writing. For Pakistani businesses weighing this kind of work, my overview of SEO work across Pakistan explains how I usually stage it.
This screenshot shows one period only. There is no before period in it, so it supports the reach figures and cannot show growth. I am not claiming the work caused a specific increase, because the screenshot cannot prove that.
The site is a media property, not a business that sells services, so impressions here are not leads. And the period has its own seasonal pattern, which a single window cannot separate out.
What the case does show is the scale of visibility a cleaned up content site can hold, and the method used to get there. I cannot promise the same reach for another site.
If several of these apply, the problem is likely structure, not writing.
Many Pakistani news sites, blogs, and company resource sections run on WordPress with default tag and category archives left open. A few years of posting can leave thousands of thin archive pages around a much smaller set of useful articles.
The fix is the same at any size. Decide which pages deserve to be found, keep them linked and in the sitemap, and keep the rest out of the index. Then group articles into topics with a clear hub for each.
Business blogs have one more step. Reach only helps a business if some of those readers can become customers, so hubs should link to the service pages that match each topic. My guide to visits that never turn into enquiries explains how to check whether your blog brings buyers or only readers. If your traffic fell after a cleanup instead of growing, read about what to check after a traffic fall before you prune further.
The structure work in this case is part of content strategy built around topics. The archive and sitemap work is part of crawl and index clean up. If you want a full list of what to prune, merge, and keep, that comes from an in depth site audit. For a shorter second opinion, one consultation hour is enough to read your indexing report together.
The same subtraction idea worked on a smaller scale for a store, described in the ecommerce structure case. AI search tools also tend to cite well organised hub pages, which matters if your site is absent from AI answers. Ongoing content work is priced in my monthly SEO plans.
Not all of them, and not by deleting first. Keep tag pages that have real search demand and useful content. Keep the rest out of the index, and make sure no useful article loses its only links when you do.
Average position sits near the edge of page two, where results get few clicks. The low rate is a result of position, and it is shown so the case is not read as better than it is.
No. The screenshot covers one 3 month window with no earlier period to compare. It supports the reach figures only.
Compare the number of indexed pages in Search Console with the number of articles you have published. If the gap is large, send me your site and both numbers. I reply within 24 hours. You can also check your site with the free scan for a first look.
Start with the free automated scan of one page. For a full review by me, send a message from the contact page.
Tell me the problemtopic hubs, pruning, and writing that earns its place
when reach does not turn into business
a local result with its own limits
every published result with its screenshot and limits