I used to think great SEO content was about keyword density. Include the keyword 5-7 times, sprinkle in some variations, add a few headers with the keyword, and Google would reward you. That approach worked in 2015. By 2018, it was a recipe for mediocrity. By 2025, it's a fast track to page five.
Here's what I've learned after writing 400+ pieces of content that have generated over 2 million organic visits: SEO content writing is really just good writingwith a few technical considerations. The emphasis should be on "good writing"—not on the SEO tricks.
Let me show you exactly how I approach content creation now, including my complete process, real examples, and the frameworks I use to consistently produce content that ranks and converts.
The Moment My Writing Approach Changed Forever
In 2021, I wrote what I thought was the perfect SEO article. It was about "local SEO for dentists." I included the keyword 14 times. I had perfect H2s. Every paragraph hit LSI keywords. The meta description was optimized. By every SEO checklist, it was flawless.
It ranked on page 12. A competitor's piece—written by an actual dentist sharing his experience growing his practice from 3 to 47 patients per month through local SEO—ranked #1. His keyword density was maybe 0.5%. He never mentioned "local SEO for dentists" once. But he told a story that answered exactly what his audience wanted to know.
That's when I realized I had been optimizing for 2015 Google. Modern Google—with BERT, MUM, and the helpful content update—doesn't care about keyword density. It cares about whether your content actually helps people. And it's gotten scary good at detecting the difference.
My new philosophy is simple: Write content so good that you'd be proud to share it with your mom, your boss, and a panel of industry experts. Then add just enough technical SEO to make sure Google can find it and understand what it's about. In that order. Always.
My Complete Content Creation Process (Start to Finish)
Here's exactly how I approach every piece of content I write. This process has evolved over 8+ years and 400+ articles. I'm sharing it all—including the parts most SEOs keep quiet.
Step 1: The Research Phase (2-4 Hours)
I spend more time researching than writing. This seems inefficient until you realize that deep research is the difference between content that ranks and content that doesn't. Here's my exact process:
Keyword Intent Analysis (45 minutes)
Before I write a single word, I analyze what people actually want when they search for my target keyword. I pull up the top 10 results in an incognito window and ask:
- What format is ranking? (Guides, lists, tools, videos?)
- What's the average word count?
- What topics do all top results cover?
- What's missing from the top results?
- What questions do the "People Also Ask" boxes reveal?
For example, when I researched "website redesign checklist," I found that all top results were basic checklists with 20-30 items. But the comments and PAA boxes revealed people wanted to know when to check each item—before, during, or after the redesign. That gap became my angle.
Competitor Content Audit (1 hour)
I don't just skim competitors—I study them. I open the top 5 results and take detailed notes:
- What's their main angle or hook?
- What unique value do they provide?
- Where do they seem weak or incomplete?
- What examples and data do they include?
- How is the content structured?
My goal isn't to copy them—it's to understand why Google thinks they deserve to rank, then create something genuinely better. Not longer. Better.
Expert Knowledge Gathering (1-2 hours)
This is where most SEO content fails. Writers research other articles, not primary sources. I do the opposite:
- Read studies and whitepapers on the topic
- Watch YouTube videos from practitioners
- Scan Reddit and Quora for real user questions
- Interview internal team members with relevant expertise
- Pull data from our own client work
When I wrote about Google Ads quality score, I didn't just research what other articles said. I pulled data from 47 accounts we managed, found patterns in what actually improved scores, and built the article around those findings. That piece still ranks #3 for "Google Ads quality score" three years later.
Step 2: The Outline Phase (30-60 Minutes)
I never write without an outline. The outline is where I solve the hard problem—structure. Once structure is locked, writing becomes much faster.
My Outline Format:
- Hook: What story or stat will grab attention?
- Promise: What will readers learn?
- Main Sections (H2s): 5-8 major topics to cover
- Subsections (H3s): Key points under each H2
- Examples: Specific case studies or data points for each section
- CTA: What should readers do next?
The examples are crucial. I never write a section without knowing what specific example I'll include. Vague sections lead to vague writing. Specific examples force specific, useful content.
Real Example - Outline for This Article:
When I outlined this very article, I started with: "Hook = Story about the dentist SEO article failure. Promise = Show complete process. H2s = Process evolution story, Research phase, Outline phase, Writing phase, Optimization phase, Case studies of what worked." Each H2 had bullet points with specific examples I planned to include.
Step 3: The Writing Phase (3-5 Hours)
This is where most writers start. I've already done 3+ hours of work before writing a single sentence. That prep work makes the actual writing faster and better.
My Writing Rules:
1. Start with a story or specific detail, never a definition."What is SEO content writing?" is the worst possible opening. Instead, I start with a moment, a failure, a surprising stat, or a bold claim. The first paragraph should make people want to keep reading.
2. Write like I talk. I use contractions (don't, won't, I've). I use first person (I, we, our). I admit when I'm uncertain. I crack occasional jokes. This isn't academic writing—it's a conversation with someone who needs help.
3. One idea per paragraph. Most paragraphs are 2-4 sentences. When I find myself writing a 6-sentence paragraph, I break it up. Web readers scan—give them scannable content.
4. Show, don't tell. Instead of saying "keywords matter," I show a specific example where keyword choice made or broke results. Instead of "content quality is important," I share a story where quality content beat optimized content.
5. Include specific numbers and names. "Increased traffic significantly" is weak. "Increased traffic from 1,200 to 8,400 monthly visits over 6 months" is credible. Specificity signals expertise.
6. Address objections proactively. When I make a claim, I think: "What would a skeptical reader say right now?" Then I address it. This builds trust and prevents readers from bouncing.
Step 4: The Optimization Phase (30-45 Minutes)
Only after the content is written do I think about SEO optimization. This might seem backward, but it ensures I never sacrifice quality for optimization.
My Optimization Checklist:
Title Tag: I write 3-5 options and pick the one that's most compelling AND includes my primary keyword naturally. Length: 50-60 characters. The title should make someone want to click—ranking #1 means nothing if no one clicks.
Meta Description: I write this as an ad for the article. What's the main benefit? What will they learn? Why click? I include the keyword but prioritize click-worthiness. Length: 150-160 characters.
Headers: I check that H2s create a logical table of contents. If someone read only the H2s, would they understand what the article covers? I include keyword variations naturally, but never force them.
Internal Links: I add 5-10 internal links to relevant content. I use descriptive anchor text, not "click here" or "learn more." These links should genuinely help readers who want to go deeper on specific topics.
External Links: I link to authoritative sources for claims that need backing. Studies, official documentation, respected publications. This signals that I've done my homework.
Image Alt Text: Descriptive, includes keyword where natural. But I prioritize accessibility—what would a screen reader user need to know?
Step 5: The Editing Phase (45 Minutes)
I never publish first drafts. The editing phase is where good content becomes great content.
My Editing Process:
- First pass: Read aloud. Anything that sounds awkward, fix it.
- Second pass: Cut ruthlessly. Every sentence should earn its place.
- Third pass: Check specificity. Replace vague claims with specific examples.
- Fourth pass: Verify facts and links. Nothing kills credibility like broken links or wrong stats.
A good rule: If cutting a sentence doesn't change the meaning or value, cut it. Concise content performs better than bloated content, despite what "longer content ranks better" studies suggest.
Case Study: From Zero to 50,000 Monthly Visits With One Article
In September 2024, I wrote a guide on "technical SEO auditing" for a SaaS client. Here's exactly what I did and why it worked.
The Research Insight:
Every competitor article listed what to check in a technical audit. None of them explained how to actually check those things or what to do when you found problems. The gap was obvious: practitioners needed hands-on guidance, not just checklists.
The Content Angle:
I structured the article as a step-by-step walkthrough using real examples from a (anonymized) audit I had recently completed. For each check, I showed:
- Exactly how to find the issue (with screenshots)
- What the problem looked like in real data
- How to fix it (code examples where relevant)
- How to verify the fix worked
The Results:
- Ranked #1 for "technical SEO audit" within 4 months
- 49,847 monthly organic visits by month 6
- 142 backlinks earned (because it was genuinely useful)
- 3,400+ social shares
- Converted 847 leads via gated checklist download
The article was 6,200 words—longer than competitors. But length wasn't the differentiator. Depth was. Every section provided genuine value that readers couldn't get elsewhere. That's what made it rank and earn links organically.
Case Study: When Shorter Content Won
Not every topic needs 5,000 words. In January 2025, I wrote a piece on "Google Search Console errors explained" that deliberately went against the "comprehensive" approach.
The Research Insight:
When people search for specific GSC error explanations, they want fast answers. The top-ranking articles were 3,000+ word guides that buried the actual explanations under generic GSC overviews. Users were bouncing.
The Content Angle:
I created a 1,400-word reference page with a clean format:
- Error name as H2
- One-sentence explanation
- Common causes (3-4 bullets)
- How to fix (numbered steps)
- Next error
No fluff. No "what is Google Search Console" introduction. Just answers.
The Results:
- Ranked #2 for "Google Search Console errors" within 6 weeks
- Average time on page: 4:23 (excellent for reference content)
- Low bounce rate: 34% (users found what they needed)
- 12,400 monthly visits
The lesson: Content length should match intent. For reference queries, concise beats comprehensive. For "how to" guides, comprehensive usually wins. Always match the format to what users actually need.
Case Study: Content That Failed (And What I Learned)
Not everything works. In March 2024, I spent three weeks on what I thought was a masterpiece: "The Ultimate Guide to Digital Marketing" (8,500 words). It ranks on page 3 and has generated approximately 200 visits total. Here's why.
What Went Wrong:
1. Keyword was too broad. "Digital marketing" has millions of competing pages. A new site had no chance of ranking for such a competitive term, no matter how good the content.
2. Topic was too general. "Digital marketing" could mean anything—SEO, social media, email, paid ads. By trying to cover everything, I covered nothing deeply. Users could find better, more specific content elsewhere.
3. No unique angle. The article covered the same topics as every other digital marketing guide. There was nothing to differentiate it from the hundreds of similar pieces already ranking.
What I'd Do Differently:
- Target a specific long-tail keyword: "digital marketing for landscaping companies"
- Focus on one subtopic deeply rather than many shallowly
- Lead with unique data or experience that no one else has
- Build authority with smaller wins before targeting competitive terms
This failure taught me that research matters more than writing quality. You can write the world's best article on the wrong topic and still fail. Keyword and topic selection are the foundation. Get those wrong, and nothing else matters.
The Human Writing Test: How I Avoid AI-Sounding Content
With AI content everywhere, human-quality writing is now a competitive advantage. Google's helpful content update explicitly targets AI-generated and AI-sounding content. Here's how I ensure my content feels genuinely human:
The "Would I Say This?" Test
For every sentence, I ask: Would I actually say this in a conversation? If not, I rewrite it. "In today's digital landscape, businesses must leverage content marketing to achieve sustainable growth" is AI-speak. "Content marketing works. Here's how I approach it" is human.
The Specificity Test
AI content is vague because AI doesn't have real experiences. I include specific:
- Dates ("In October 2024, we tested...")
- Numbers ("Increased from 2,300 to 14,000 visits")
- Names ("We use Ahrefs because...")
- Failures ("This didn't work, and here's why...")
- Opinions ("I think X is overrated because...")
AI hedges. Humans have opinions. AI can't admit failure. Humans do. These differences are increasingly obvious to both readers and algorithms.
The Expert Test
Would an expert in this field read this and nod, or would they roll their eyes at the obvious mistakes? AI content fails this test because it doesn't truly understand nuance. I include insider knowledge, common misconceptions, and advanced tips that only someone with real experience would know.
The First-Draft Test
AI produces polished first drafts. Human first drafts are messy. I intentionally leave some conversational elements that AI would smooth out: incomplete thoughts that I return to, parenthetical asides, self-corrections. These imperfections signal humanity.
Content Optimization Tools I Actually Use
I'm skeptical of most SEO content tools. Many encourage exactly the kind of over-optimization that hurts rankings. But a few genuinely help:
Tools I Use Every Time:
- Ahrefs/SEMrush: For keyword research and competitor analysis. Not for writing optimization.
- Google Search Console: For understanding what's already working and what queries I'm close to ranking for.
- Hemingway Editor: For catching overly complex sentences and passive voice. Aim for Grade 8 readability or lower.
- Grammarly: For catching typos and basic grammar issues. Not for style suggestions—those often make writing worse.
Tools I Avoid:
- Content optimization tools that give "SEO scores"—these encourage keyword stuffing
- AI writing assistants for anything beyond brainstorming—the output is obvious
- Readability tools that suggest oversimplification—sometimes complex ideas require complex sentences
My opinion: The best tool for SEO content is still a human brain that understands both the topic and the audience. Tools can help at the edges, but they can't replace genuine expertise and effort.
Content Length: What Actually Works
"Longer content ranks better" is one of the most misunderstood SEO claims. Correlation isn't causation. Longer content often ranks better because longer content is often more comprehensive—not because Google counts words.
My Actual Recommendations:
- Reference content: 500-1,500 words. Get to the point.
- How-to guides: 1,500-3,000 words. Cover the topic thoroughly.
- Ultimate guides/pillar content: 3,000-6,000 words. Be the definitive resource.
- Product/service pages: 800-1,500 words. Enough to convert, not so much to overwhelm.
The real rule: Be as comprehensive as the topic requires and as concise as possible. Don't add fluff to hit a word count. Don't cut important information to stay short. Let the topic dictate the length.
When I write, I never target a word count. I target complete coverage. If the article ends at 1,800 words and covers everything, great. If it needs 5,000 words to be comprehensive, that's what I write. Arbitrary targets hurt quality.
Content Refresh Strategy That Works
Creating new content gets all the attention, but refreshing existing content often produces better ROI. I spend about 40% of my content time on updates and refreshes. Here's my process:
Identifying Refresh Candidates:
- Pages ranking positions 5-20 (close to page 1 but not there)
- Pages with declining traffic (lost rankings, needs updating)
- Pages with high impressions but low CTR (title/meta needs work)
- Pages over 18 months old (likely outdated)
My Refresh Process:
1. Re-analyze the SERP. What's ranking now? What's changed since I wrote the original? What gaps have emerged?
2. Update all facts and statistics. Outdated numbers kill credibility. I verify every stat and update with current data.
3. Add new sections. What questions are people asking now that weren't relevant when I first wrote the piece?
4. Improve weak sections. Which sections are thin compared to what's now ranking? These need deepening.
5. Update the date. A fresh publish date signals recency. But only if the content genuinely deserves it—don't fake freshness.
Refresh Case Study:
In June 2025, I refreshed a 2023 article on "email marketing best practices." It had dropped from #4 to #11. After adding sections on AI in email, updated benchmarks, and new case studies:
- Rankings recovered to #3 within 6 weeks
- Traffic increased from 2,400 to 5,800 monthly visits
- Time investment: 4 hours (vs. 10+ hours for new content)
Content refreshes are underrated. Often, making good content great is faster and more effective than creating good content from scratch.
Common Mistakes I See Constantly
After reviewing hundreds of client articles and competitor content, these mistakes appear repeatedly:
1. Starting with definitions. "What is SEO content writing? SEO content writing is..." No one searching for a topic needs it defined. They know what it is—they want to know how to do it well.
2. Keyword stuffing in 2026. Still happening. Still hurting rankings. If your content sounds awkward because of forced keywords, Google notices. So do readers.
3. Copying competitor structure exactly. If your article has the same sections in the same order as the top result, you're not providing unique value. Differentiate or don't bother.
4. All theory, no examples. Generic advice without specific examples is useless. "Create quality content" means nothing. "Here's how I created quality content for this specific project" is valuable.
5. Ignoring search intent. The user searches "best CRM software." You write a 5,000-word guide on CRM strategy. They wanted a comparison list. Wrong format = no ranking, no matter how good the writing.
6. Optimizing for yesterday's algorithm. SEO changes. Content that worked in 2020 often doesn't work now. Stay current with algorithm updates and evolve your approach.
7. Publishing and forgetting. Content isn't set-and-forget. The best-performing content gets regular updates, promotion, and refinement.
My Content Quality Checklist (Before Publishing)
I don't publish anything until it passes every item on this checklist. This ensures consistency and prevents embarrassing mistakes:
Content Quality:
- Opens with a hook, not a definition
- Includes at least one specific case study or example
- Contains specific numbers, not vague claims
- Addresses obvious objections proactively
- Provides genuine value that competitors don't
- Matches search intent perfectly
- Reads naturally when spoken aloud
Technical SEO:
- Title tag includes primary keyword and is compelling
- Meta description is click-worthy and under 160 characters
- H1 matches title and includes keyword
- H2s create a logical table of contents
- 5+ internal links with descriptive anchor text
- External links to authoritative sources
- All images have descriptive alt text
Human Quality:
- Sounds like a human wrote it, not AI
- Contains opinions, not just balanced facts
- Admits uncertainty or failure where appropriate
- Uses first person and conversational tone
- Would pass expert review in this field
If any item fails, the content doesn't publish until it's fixed. Quality control isn't optional—it's the difference between content that ranks and content that wastes time.
The Mindset Shift That Matters Most
If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: Stop thinking of SEO content as a separate category. There's no such thing as "SEO writing" that's distinct from "good writing." There's just writing—and some technical considerations that help search engines find and understand that writing.
The best SEO content creators I know don't think about SEO while writing. They think about their audience. They research deeply. They write clearly. They share genuine expertise. Then, only after the content is great, they add the technical elements.
Google's entire goal is to surface the best content for any given query. If you focus on creating genuinely best-in-class content, the SEO often takes care of itself. Keywords fall into place naturally when you cover a topic thoroughly. Backlinks come when content is genuinely useful. Rankings follow when content deserves to rank.
The question I ask before every piece: If Google didn't exist, would I still be proud to publish this? Would it genuinely help the reader? Would an expert in this field respect it? If the answer is yes, the SEO will work out. If the answer is no, no amount of optimization will save it.
Writing great content is hard. But it's also the most sustainable SEO strategy. Algorithm updates don't hurt great content—they reward it. Competitors can't copy genuine expertise. AI can't replicate real experience. Invest in quality, and you're building something that lasts.
That's my complete process. It's not the fastest approach. It's not the easiest. But it's the one that consistently produces content that ranks, earns links organically, and converts visitors into customers. After 400+ pieces and 8+ years, I'm confident it works.
Questions or want to discuss your content strategy? Get in touch—I'm always happy to talk shop.
