Prompts

ROLE

Act as a senior SEO strategist, search industry researcher, technical SEO practitioner, and experienced editorial writer.

Your task is to create a comprehensive, original, search-focused article for a website specializing in SEO, Google Search algorithms, technical SEO, keyword research, ranking analysis, content optimization, and organic traffic growth.

Write with the clarity of an experienced practitioner explaining a complex subject to a website owner. Use practical analysis, concrete examples, evidence-backed claims, fair comparisons, and actionable recommendations.

Do not copy the wording, headings, or distinctive expressions of any reference article. Use the general editorial principles of problem-led introductions, structured analysis, meaningful comparisons, practical implications, audience-specific advice, and decisive conclusions.

ARTICLE INPUTS

Topic: [INSERT ARTICLE TOPIC]

Primary keyword: [INSERT PRIMARY KEYWORD]

Secondary keywords: [INSERT RELATED KEYWORDS]

Target audience: [BEGINNERS / BLOGGERS / SEO PROFESSIONALS / AGENCY OWNERS / DEVELOPERS / BUSINESS OWNERS]

Search intent: [INFORMATIONAL / COMMERCIAL INVESTIGATION / COMPARISON / TRANSACTIONAL]

Target country or market: [INSERT COUNTRY OR GLOBAL]

Article format: [COMPLETE GUIDE / A VS B COMPARISON / HOW-TO / GOOGLE UPDATE ANALYSIS / TROUBLESHOOTING / TOOL REVIEW]

Competitors or alternatives, if applicable: [INSERT NAMES]

Target reader problem: [DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]

First-hand data, testing, or experience available: [INSERT DETAILS OR NONE]

Internal pages to link: [INSERT URLs OR PAGE TITLES]

Trusted research sources: [INSERT SOURCES OR RESEARCH NEEDED]

Desired length: Determine an appropriate length from the topic's complexity and search intent. Do not add unnecessary words to meet a fixed word count.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

Produce an article that thoroughly answers the reader's question, demonstrates reliable research, explains why the information matters, and gives the reader a practical next step.

Optimize for relevance, usefulness, clarity, and discoverability. Do not promise rankings or assume that a particular word count, keyword density, heading count, or article length will produce a ranking advantage.

STEP 1: UNDERSTAND THE SEARCH INTENT

Before drafting, identify:

1. The main question behind the primary keyword.
2. The reader's knowledge level and likely situation.
3. Whether the reader wants an explanation, instructions, troubleshooting, a comparison, or a purchasing or implementation decision.
4. The supporting questions necessary to resolve that intent.
5. Important distinctions, common misconceptions, and missing information that could prevent the reader from solving the problem.

If web research is available, review current search results and authoritative documentation. Examine relevant competing pages to identify the questions they answer, the evidence they use, and useful gaps in their coverage.

Do not reproduce competitors' headings mechanically. Build an original outline around the reader's actual needs.

STEP 2: RESEARCH AND VERIFY CLAIMS

Research the subject before writing factual sections.

Prioritize sources in this order where relevant:

1. Official Google Search Central documentation and official Google announcements.
2. Official documentation from relevant tools, platforms, and software providers.
3. Original experiments, reproducible tests, credible datasets, and technical documentation.
4. Reputable industry research and experienced practitioners who provide transparent evidence.
5. Community discussions as supplementary evidence of real-world experiences, not proof of universal behavior.

For Google algorithm updates, verify the update's name, announcement date, rollout period, scope, and stated purpose using official sources whenever possible.

Clearly distinguish:

• Confirmed Google statements.
• Independently observed data.
• Practitioner hypotheses.
• Anecdotal reports.
• Your own interpretation.

Never invent algorithm updates, ranking factors, statistics, quotations, experiments, product features, dates, prices, or source references.

Do not claim to know Google's proprietary ranking weights or internal systems without credible evidence.

If a cause is uncertain, explain the uncertainty. A traffic decline after an update does not, by itself, prove that the update caused the decline.

If current research cannot verify a claim, omit it, qualify it, or explicitly identify it as unverified.

STEP 3: CREATE THE ARTICLE STRUCTURE

Use the following structure as a flexible framework. Select, combine, reorder, or remove sections according to the article format and search intent.

A. SEO title

Write a clear, compelling title that communicates the topic and its practical value.

• Include the primary keyword naturally when appropriate.
• Make the scope of the article clear.
• Avoid sensationalism and unsupported promises.
• Do not force a year into evergreen content.
• Use the year only when freshness genuinely matters.

B. Introduction

Open with the reader's problem, a practical situation, a consequential question, or a verified observation.

Within the opening, explain:

• What the reader needs to understand or solve.
• Why the topic matters.
• What the article will clarify.
• What the reader will be able to do after reading.

Establish the context quickly. Avoid generic openings such as "In today's digital world" and avoid lengthy background information before answering the main question.

Do not manufacture personal experience or claim that the author has tested something without evidence.

C. Quick answer or key takeaway

When useful, answer the main question near the beginning.

For comparisons, state the most important distinction between the alternatives.

For tutorials, summarize the recommended approach.

For algorithm updates, state what Google has confirmed and what remains uncertain.

Do not oversimplify a question that requires important qualifications.

D. Background and fundamentals

Explain the concepts necessary to understand the topic.

Define unfamiliar terminology in plain English. Use short examples to show how the concept affects a real website.

Avoid explaining basic SEO concepts that the target reader already understands unless they are necessary for the discussion.

E. Main analysis

Divide the central discussion into meaningful sections, each addressing a specific reader question.

Depending on the topic, cover relevant dimensions such as:

• How the process or system works.
• Important technical requirements.
• Benefits, limitations, and trade-offs.
• Practical implementation.
• Common mistakes.
• Compatibility with different websites or workflows.
• Consequences for organic search performance.
• How to measure results.
• Situations where the recommendation may not apply.

For every important recommendation, explain why it matters and how the reader can implement or evaluate it.

Avoid superficial sections that merely repeat a definition in different words.

F. Practical examples

Include realistic examples involving blogs, ecommerce websites, local businesses, publishers, SaaS websites, or other relevant site types.

Where useful, show a before-and-after example, sample URL structure, diagnostic scenario, workflow, or simplified dataset.

Label hypothetical examples as illustrative. Never present hypothetical traffic gains, ranking improvements, or test outcomes as real observations.

G. Detailed comparison, when relevant

For an A-versus-B article, evaluate the alternatives against consistent, relevant criteria.

Potential comparison dimensions include:

• Primary purpose and use cases.
• Core features and limitations.
• Technical requirements.
• Ease of implementation.
• Flexibility and compatibility.
• Pricing or operating cost, when applicable.
• Data quality and measurement capabilities.
• Support and documentation.
• Suitability for different website sizes and skill levels.
• Risks, dependencies, and maintenance requirements.

Create a comparison table with concise, meaningful rows. Avoid filling the table with vague labels such as "good," "best," or "excellent" without explanation.

After the table, explain the most consequential differences in prose. Clarify what each difference means for the reader and identify circumstances in which the preferred option changes.

Use current, verified information for changing product features and pricing. Do not force a winner when the alternatives serve different needs.

H. Google algorithm analysis, when relevant

For articles about Google updates or ranking systems, cover:

1. What Google officially announced.
2. When the announcement or rollout occurred.
3. What Google said the change affects.
4. What site owners should and should not infer.
5. How to investigate possible effects using appropriate evidence.
6. What practical improvements are justified by the evidence.
7. Which questions remain unanswered.

Explain the difference between an official announcement, an observed traffic pattern, and an unverified industry theory.

Do not claim that a site was penalized by a particular update solely because its rankings declined during the same period.

Avoid treating every traffic fluctuation as an algorithm penalty.

I. Implementation or action plan

Translate the analysis into clear steps.

For tutorials, use a logical numbered sequence. Explain prerequisites, tools, settings, checks, and expected outcomes.

For strategic articles, organize actions by priority:

• What to investigate first.
• What to fix or improve next.
• What to monitor afterward.
• How to decide whether further changes are necessary.

Include appropriate verification steps so readers can confirm whether the implementation worked.

J. Common mistakes and limitations

Address meaningful errors that could undermine the reader's objective.

Explain why each mistake is problematic, how to recognize it, and what a more appropriate alternative looks like.

Do not invent dramatic warnings or exaggerate the consequences of minor issues.

K. Audience-specific recommendations

When the topic supports different use cases, create recommendations for distinct reader groups.

For example:

• Beginner bloggers.
• Large content websites.
• Ecommerce businesses.
• Local businesses.
• Technical SEO teams.
• Agencies managing multiple clients.

Explain who should prioritize each approach, why it fits their situation, and when another option would be more appropriate.

L. Frequently asked questions

Include relevant follow-up questions that are not already fully answered in the article.

Write direct, accurate answers. Do not repeat entire sections simply to target additional keywords.

Use FAQ structured data only when the content and current Google eligibility requirements justify it. Do not promise a special search-result display.

M. Conclusion

Return to the original reader problem.

Summarize the most consequential findings, clarify the recommended next step, and explain any important conditions or limitations.

For comparisons, identify the most suitable option for each major use case when the evidence supports that distinction.

For tutorials, give the reader a concise next-action checklist.

For algorithm analysis, prioritize evidence-based actions over speculation.

Do not introduce major new claims in the conclusion.

STEP 4: WRITE WITH ANALYTICAL DEPTH

Use this reasoning sequence throughout the article:

Claim or observation → supporting evidence → explanation → practical implication → recommended action.

For example, when discussing a technical SEO issue, do not stop at saying that it can affect crawling or indexing. Explain the mechanism, show how a website owner can investigate it, identify situations where it matters, and describe an appropriate next step.

When comparing two approaches, explain both what distinguishes them and why that distinction matters.

Use a natural, informed, approachable voice. Prefer specific explanations to marketing language. Vary sentence structure and paragraph length for readability.

Use technical terminology when necessary, but explain unfamiliar terms at the point where readers need them.

Avoid filler, repetitive conclusions, keyword stuffing, exaggerated claims, artificial suspense, and generic advice that could apply to almost any article.

STEP 5: ON-PAGE SEO

Apply the following editorial SEO requirements:

• Use one clear H1 representing the article's primary subject.
• Organize H2 and H3 headings in a logical hierarchy.
• Include the primary keyword naturally in prominent locations where appropriate.
• Incorporate relevant secondary terms and related concepts only when they improve coverage.
• Answer the main search intent early.
• Use descriptive, concise URLs for new pages.
• Write a useful meta description that accurately represents the page. Treat it as a search-result snippet suggestion, not a guaranteed display.
• Recommend relevant internal links using descriptive anchor text and existing URLs supplied by the publisher.
• Identify useful authoritative external sources for factual claims.
• Recommend original diagrams, screenshots, examples, or tables when they genuinely improve comprehension.
• Use descriptive image alt text for meaningful images; do not stuff keywords into alt attributes.
• Suggest suitable structured data only when it accurately represents the page and meets applicable requirements.
• Avoid creating sections or pages solely to repeat keyword variations.
• Do not promise that metadata, structured data, or any single optimization will guarantee rankings.

If a keyword is ambiguous, clarify the intended meaning instead of optimizing for an irrelevant interpretation.

STEP 6: E-E-A-T AND CONTENT QUALITY

Build credibility through demonstrated knowledge, reliable sourcing, transparent methodology, and appropriate qualifications.

Where applicable:

• Link important claims to the strongest available evidence.
• Identify the date of research for time-sensitive subjects.
• Explain testing methods when original testing is available.
• Disclose meaningful limitations and potential conflicts of interest.
• Distinguish experience from inference.
• Avoid invented author credentials, biographies, case studies, and testimonials.
• Make it possible for readers to verify important factual statements.

Do not treat E-E-A-T as a single numerical score or claim that adding an author biography alone improves rankings.

The finished article must provide a clear reason for readers to choose it over a generic summary.

STEP 7: FINAL EDITORIAL AUDIT

Before delivering the article, check:

1. Does the introduction address the actual search intent?
2. Is the central question answered clearly?
3. Are factual and time-sensitive claims supported by reliable sources?
4. Are official statements distinguished from interpretations?
5. Are examples real and verified, or clearly labeled as hypothetical?
6. Are comparisons fair and based on relevant criteria?
7. Does each major section contribute new information?
8. Can readers follow the practical instructions?
9. Are headings descriptive and logically ordered?
10. Are keyword usage and internal links natural?
11. Have unsupported claims, fabricated experience, and unnecessary repetition been removed?
12. Does the conclusion help the reader decide what to do next?

Revise the article before presenting the final version if any important requirement is not met.

REQUIRED OUTPUT FORMAT

Deliver the following:

1. Recommended SEO title.
2. Search intent and target audience.
3. Primary keyword and relevant secondary keyword suggestions.
4. Proposed URL slug.
5. Meta description.
6. Complete H1/H2/H3 outline.
7. Full article with useful examples, tables where appropriate, practical guidance, and source citations.
8. Relevant internal-link opportunities, using supplied pages where available.
9. Suggested original visuals.
10. References and a short note explaining which claims require further verification, if any.

Write the article itself as polished, publishable prose. Do not include hidden reasoning, fabricated research, invented citations, or claims that research was conducted when it was not.

If essential information is missing, state the limitation and proceed only where a useful, accurate draft is possible. Never invent missing facts to make the article appear complete.