Business

3 Tips to Fix Keyword Cannibalization from Real Guest Blogging

Published

6 years ago

July 23, 2020

Have you ever seen two or more of your web pages ranking for the same keyword? At first, this might seem like a good thing. After all, the more pages showing up on the first page, the more traffic you get, right? As any wise webmaster would tell you, however, this problem could be costing you potential customers and sales.

Real Guest Blogging specializes in content marketing, and one of the most common problems they encounter with their clients is keyword cannibalization. This happens when you target the same keyword across two or more pages on your website. Without an efficient content strategy in place, it proves challenging to prevent keyword cannibalization, particularly if you have a huge site with hundreds or even thousands of indexed pages.

It’s worth noting; however, that keyword cannibalization isn’t always a bad thing. But if you know that fixing the problem can improve your conversion rate and profit margins, then you should equip yourself with the right knowledge to stop your posts from cannibalizing each other once and for all.

1) Identify what pages are affected

Your first step is to identify what pages of your website are affected by keyword cannibalization. The easiest way to do this is to head over to Google and use the search query: “domain + keyword.” For instance, typing “bestwidgets.com + red widgets” will return a list of all indexed pages on your blog that contain this particular keyword or similar variations.

You need to sift through this list and identify what keywords these pages are ranking for. From there, it’s all a matter of finding out whether one or more pages rank for the same keyword.

2) De-optimize

When you see a page cannibalizing another, and you’re sure that your site will be better off without its ranking for the same keyword, then it’s time to start de-optimizing. The easiest thing to do is to remove the keyword in question from the page you want to withdraw from the search results pages. But this usually doesn’t cut it. In most cases, you have to look at the internal links pointing to that page and de-optimize the anchor texts as well.

To take things up a notch, you may want to use a backlink checker to see the external inbound links of the page. This entails reaching out to the webmasters of the sites that link to your page, and you can’t expect them to reply all the time. But it’s worth trying if you want the best shot at de-optimizing the page.

3) Merge similar content

Merging is the best route to take when two or more pages have very similar topics. Usually, you can combine these pages into a brand new page, allowing you to create a more comprehensive post that could have a higher ranking potential. Just remember to use a 301 redirect from the old pages to the new URL. Doing so will preserve “link juice,” giving the new page a better chance of ranking for your target keyword quickly.

4) Delete the page

Of course, you also have the option of merely deleting the pages that cannibalize others. Many webmasters might find this a bit extreme, and it can be not easy to delete a page knowing that you put in the time and effort to create it. But if you know that it hurts the chances of ranking another page, then it’s best to delete it. This applies in particular to pages that get little traffic and have no backlinks.

In Summary

Keyword cannibalization can be a severe problem for any website, yet it’s easy to forget about it as you focus on creating content and optimizing other website elements. Real Guest Blogging recommends preventing the issue before it even arises. Determine whether any of your existing pages already rank for the target keyword you have in mind. This helps you figure out whether it’s worth creating content from scratch or you’re better off updating an old post.

Business

Click for Counsel: YesLawyer Wants to Make Lawyers as Accessible as Wi-Fi

Published

5 days ago

April 1, 2026

Matthew Wiles

Photo Courtesy of: YesLawyer

Byline: Andi Stark

For many people facing a legal problem, the most difficult part is not understanding their rights but finding a lawyer willing to speak with them in the first place. Long wait times, unclear pricing, and administrative hurdles often delay even the most basic consultations. YesLawyer, an AI-enabled plaintiff firm operating across all 50 states, is testing whether technology can shorten that gap.

Founded in 2024 by 25-year-old entrepreneur Rob Epstein, the platform offers free intake, automated screening, and, in many cases, same-day conversations with licensed attorneys. The idea is simple: reduce the friction between a client’s first request for help and an actual legal discussion. In this interview, Epstein explains how the system works, where artificial intelligence fits into the process, and what problems the company is trying to address in the broader legal system

Q: When you say you want lawyers to be “as accessible as Wi-Fi,” what does that mean in practical terms?

A: It’s a way of describing speed and availability. Someone dealing with a workplace dispute, a serious injury, or an immigration issue should be able to move from an online form or phone call to a real conversation with counsel in hours, not weeks. YesLawyer is structured so that a client begins with a free case evaluation, goes through automated conflict checks and basic screening, and, in many instances, speaks with a lawyer the same day.

Q: How does the process work once someone contacts the platform?

A: We use a structured workflow. It starts with a short questionnaire and an initial conversation to capture basic facts. That information feeds into conflict checks and internal review. The system then proposes a match with a licensed attorney and provides a calendar link for a virtual consultation, often within 24 hours. After the meeting, the client receives a written legal plan outlining next steps, deadlines, and estimated fees.

Q: Where does artificial intelligence fit into that process, and where does it stop?

A: AI is used for organizing and routing information, not for giving legal advice. It helps with conflict checks at scale, case categorization, and structured summaries so attorneys can focus on the substance of the matter. Every consultation is conducted by a licensed lawyer, and all decisions about strategy or next steps are made by humans.

Q: What problem is this model trying to solve in the current legal system?

A: Delay and cost are still major barriers. Many civil plaintiffs face long waits just to get a first appointment, along with high retainers and hourly billing that make early legal advice risky. We try to respond with faster consultations, flat-fee options, and financing. The idea is to remove administrative friction so lawyers spend less time on logistics and more time speaking with clients.

Q: Some critics say platforms like this blur the line between a technology company and a law firm. How do you describe YesLawyer?

A: We describe ourselves as a national, AI-enabled plaintiff firm that connects clients with independent attorneys. That structure does raise regulatory questions, especially around responsibility and oversight. We focus on licensing verification, attorney-written case plans, and clear communication about fees and services.

Q: You’ve said the main bottleneck is “systems” rather than people. What do you mean by that?

A: The issue isn’t that lawyers don’t want to help more people. It’s that the systems around them make it hard to scale their time. Intake, scheduling, and document handling take hours. Automating those parts means attorneys can handle more matters without being overwhelmed by repetitive tasks.

Q: Does this model risk favoring only the most profitable cases?

A: That’s a real concern in legal technology. Automation often works best for repeatable, high-volume disputes. Our view is that lowering administrative cost can actually make it easier to take on smaller or more complex cases that might otherwise be turned away. Whether that holds over time depends on the data.

Measuring Impact Over Time

YesLawyer’s attempt to compress the timeline between inquiry and consultation reflects broader changes in how legal services are being delivered. As artificial intelligence becomes more common in administrative work, firms are experimenting with new ways to reduce wait times and clarify costs.

The company’s early growth suggests that many clients value faster access to an initial conversation, even before considering long-term representation. Whether this platform-based model becomes widely adopted or remains one of several emerging approaches will depend on regulatory developments, lawyer participation, and measurable outcomes for clients. For now, YesLawyer’s experiment highlights a central question in modern legal practice: how quickly can help realistically be made available to the people who need it.