Building out a landscaping contractor's site in Orange County, CA. He's done his own SEO research (and a fair bit of asking AI) and landed on wanting 1,000+ pages.
The math: 35 services × 38 cities in the county = ~1,330 service-in-city pages, plus the 8 existing pages.
Where the site is today:
- 8 pages, all indexed
- 29,337 impressions / 115 clicks over 90 days (CTR 0.39%, most pages sitting position 20–30)
- Zero referring domains — no link profile at all
- Domain is 4.8 years old, established business, real Google Business Profile
He also wants a blog and guide layer — St. Augustine vs fescue grass, St. Aug care guide, Fescue care guide, that whole thing. I have no issue with that part; it's genuinely useful content and he knows the material.
My questions:
- I know duplicate content is the obvious trap here. But if I actually solve that each page carrying real local specifics (soil, HOA rules, water district, actual project photos, different pricing) rather than a city name swapped into a template is the 1,330-page structure beneficial, or does scale itself become the problem regardless of quality? At what point does Google stop reading this as expansion and start reading it as scaled content abuse?
- What's the right sequencing? Ship all of it, or in waves? And if waves what's the signal that tells me wave 1 worked before I commit to wave 2? I'd rather learn it at 30 pages than 1,300.
- Going from 8 indexed pages to 1,300+ with zero backlinks is crawl budget a real constraint at that ratio, or is that overblown for a site this size
- On the guides: he thinks the blog/guide layer will help with AI search visibility specifically. I'm not opposed but my instinct is that Yelp, Houzz and review volume do more for a local contractor than any amount of on-site content. Is that right? or am I undervaluing the content in 2026?
Anything obviously wrong with this beyond the copy-quality issue on each page?
[link] [comments]
from The SEO Authority https://ift.tt/M0vnjEf
Comments
Post a Comment