In March 2024, Google folded its Helpful Content system into the core ranking algorithm. The named update is gone. What it measured is not.

That distinction matters for how you pick keywords. Content quality and topical authority aren't something you scramble to satisfy after a specific update lands. They're standing conditions of ranking, baked into how Google scores every page on your site.

So the old reflex no longer works. You can't muscle your way to the top of a competitive SERP with links and a thin page that technically mentions the term.

That approach was on borrowed time, and the borrowing is over.

The results page itself has changed too. For a growing share of queries, an AI Overview answers the question before anyone scrolls to the links. Picking a keyword now means asking two things: can you beat the pages already there, and is there still something worth winning?

This piece is about finding keywords you can actually rank for by reading the weaknesses already sitting in the search results. The framework comes from Dmitry Dragilev, founder of TopicRanker and JustReachOut. He built it from years of studying which SERPs a small site can take, and most of the examples below are his.

Start With "Do You Deserve To Rank?"

Before you target anything, ask a blunt question: could you prove your case in court?

Do you have the topical authority to rank here? Have you covered this subject consistently enough that your site reads as an expert on it? A brand-new blog chasing a keyword with 100,000 monthly searches isn't going to rank, and no amount of wishing changes that.

You haven't earned it.

This is the part the volume-first crowd skips. They sort keywords by search volume, pick the biggest number, and write a page.

Then they wonder why it sits on page four.

Authority isn't a single page. It's a body of content. The "deserve to rank" test is just a way of asking whether that body exists yet for the topic in front of you. If it doesn't, your job is to build it, not to gamble on a term you can't defend.

Read The SERP For Weakness

Once you have authority on a topic, the question becomes which specific keywords are worth the work. The answer is in the search results, not the keyword tool.

A SERP tells you whether the incumbents are beatable. Dmitry's research points to a consistent set of signals that a result is weak enough to displace. Look for these patterns on page one:

  • Incumbents with thin topical authority. The sites ranking have published a page or two on the subject, not a body of work. They're there because nobody stronger showed up.
  • Title tags that miss the intent behind the query.
  • Poor readability on the ranking pages.
  • Shallow coverage. The pages skim the subject, skip the obvious subtopics, and leave the follow-up questions unanswered.
  • Content that's gone stale for the query. How old is too old depends on the topic. A page on tax rules or software features dates fast. A page on writing headlines doesn't. The weakness is a page that no longer reflects what's true.
  • Poor page experience. Slow, unstable pages that frustrate the reader the moment they land.
  • Formats that don't belong. Forum threads, PDFs, and other pages standing in where a proper article should be.
  • Rankings the link profile can't explain. A page with thin or spammy backlinks holding a top position usually means nothing better exists yet.

None of these is a guarantee on its own. But stacked together, they tell you the field is soft.

The intent mismatch signal deserves a closer look, because it's the one people read wrong. The idea is to extract the meaning of the search query and compare it against the meaning of the results already ranking. AI-assisted analysis can grade that fit, and in Dmitry's scoring anything under an 80% match flags as a weakness. But he's clear that this isn't an exact science. Treat the score as a prompt to investigate, not a verdict.

Shallow coverage is the hardest signal to judge by eye. Siteimprove.ai compares your content against the pages already ranking and shows the subtopics and questions they cover that you don't. Run that comparison before you commit to a keyword and you'll see how much ground you have to make up. The point isn't the source of the data. The point is that you stop guessing and start reading the SERP for the gaps it's showing you.

Check Who Already Owns The Answer

The signals above tell you whether you can outrank the pages on page one. But they don't tell you whether ranking still pays.

Before you commit to a keyword, look at what sits above the results:

  • Is there an AI Overview? If the query gets a complete answer at the top of the page, plenty of searchers stop there. A simple definitional query with a tidy AI answer may send far less traffic than its volume suggests.
  • Which sources does it cite? Weak citations are a weakness signal in their own right. If the AI answer leans on a forum post, a thin listicle, or an outdated page, there's room for a better source to replace it.
  • What does the answer leave out? AI answers handle the simple version of a question well. They're weaker on judgment calls, trade-offs, and the specifics of a situation. Those gaps are where a click still has value.

Modern SERP analysis means asking who owns the answer, not just who holds position one. And with the shift to zero-click search, a keyword where you can earn the citation can be worth as much as one where you can earn the click.

Volume Is A Factor, Not The North Star

Search volume tells you how many people want an answer. But it tells you nothing about whether you can be the one to give it, or what that answer is worth.

This is the trap I keep watching teams fall into. Volume sits near the top of the list of SEO metrics that mislead teams. A keyword with 300 searches a month and a weak SERP is worth more to you than a 100,000-search term defended by ten authoritative pages.

Dmitry proved this on his own domain. He published one strong piece on a brand-new site with almost no authority, promoted it on social and through email, and ranked number one for "which keywords are best to target," a term with about 300 monthly searches. He eventually picked up three links and held the position.

The SERP was beatable, so he beat it.

Cost-per-click is worth a look too. Advertisers pay for clicks that convert, so CPC tells you how much commercial value the market puts on a query. I'd take a low-volume term with a healthy CPC and a soft SERP over a vanity keyword any day.

The lesson isn't "chase low volume." It's "chase weakness where you have authority," and let volume be one input among several. Dmitry has written more on how and why you should target low search volume keywords for anyone who wants the longer argument.

Build A New Blog On Clusters, Not Big Terms

If you're starting fresh, don't point your first ten articles at the biggest keyword in your space.

You'll lose.

Build topical authority gradually. Start with clusters and pillars: cover the subtopics first, then work your way toward the pillar term as your coverage deepens. The authority compounds as the cluster fills in.

Healthy Hearing is the clearest example of this working. They didn't open by trying to rank for "hearing aids," a term pulling 200,000 searches a month. They targeted the subtopics (hearing aid batteries, hearing aids in water, hearing aid design) and built coverage piece by piece. Over time that body of content earned them a top-five position for the pillar term itself.

You can't get there by writing one 20,000-word page about hearing aids.

Depth across a cluster beats length in a single document, every time.

It's the same logic behind any sound content strategy: combine competitive analysis, user intent, and topics into one plan instead of chasing terms in isolation.

A note on length while we're here. Writing long for the sake of length is a mistake. Conciseness is a signal of expertise, and a page that meanders across three unrelated intents reads as lower quality to people and machines alike. A cluster of focused, smaller pieces will almost always outperform one bloated one.

Pruning: What Stays And What Goes

Google's quality scoring is machine learning at the site level. It classifies individual pages as helpful or not, then aggregates upward. One section of off-topic or low-quality content can weigh down everything around it.

So pruning isn't optional maintenance. It's part of how you defend the authority you've built.

The decision starts with one question: does this page fit your primary topical focus? If yes, keep it and improve it. If no, it's a candidate for deletion.

But don't delete blindly. If an off-topic page carries real link equity, look for a way to marry it to a relevant target keyword with SERP weaknesses you can exploit. If you can find that fit, rework the page and redirect. If you can't find a natural fit, delete it anyway. Link equity alone isn't a reason to keep dead weight on a focused site.

Dmitry runs this exact process on JustReachOut. The site is about PR, so anything that isn't about PR is a deletion candidate unless it can be redirected toward a PR-relevant topic.

Here's the mistake to avoid. Plenty of marketers sort their pages by traffic, descending, and delete whatever sits at the bottom.

That's pulling teeth out of your own jaw.

Low-traffic pages are often the ones holding up your topical authority. They're the supporting cluster content that earns no clicks but tells Google you cover the subject. But delete by relevance and fit, never by traffic alone.

The same caution applies when you pivot a site's focus. The new topic should be semantically related to what you already have, and you may need bridge content to connect the old territory to the new.

Treat a pivot like a product launch, not a rebrand.

Last Words

Stop asking which keyword has the most volume. Start asking which SERP is weak enough to lose to you, whether there's still a click or a citation worth winning, and whether you've earned the right to take it.