Skip to main content
Cannibalization table with page pairs, semantic similarity, and overlap match counts
Use this page to review assessed competition between indexed website pages using saved page relationships and shared search-query evidence.

Important: A flagged pair is a prioritization signal, not an automatic merge decision.

​
Questions this page should answer

  1. Which page pairs overlap too much in intent?
  2. How severe is the overlap based on similarity and matching signals?
  3. Which pairs should we merge, re-scope, or relink first?

​
Before you analyze

  • Make sure Project Knowledge is synced recently.
  • Start with high-value page types (money pages, category hubs, key guides).
  • Review the top summary cards before reading pair-level rows.

​
What this page gives you

  • Summary cards:
    • Analyzed pages
    • Detected pairs
    • Similarity threshold
    • Min overlap matches
  • Pair table with:
    • Page A
    • Page B
    • Similarity
    • Overlap Matches

​
How to read the top cards

  • Analyzed pages: how many indexed pages were checked.
  • Detected pairs: number of overlapping pairs found.
  • Similarity threshold: minimum assessed cannibalization and same-intent probability required for a pair.
  • Min overlap matches: minimum meaningful shared-query signals required before a pair appears.
Use this interpretation:
  • High detected-pair count with stable page volume means structural overlap debt.
  • Lower threshold values increase recall but add noisier pairs.
  • Higher minimum overlap values reduce noise but can hide borderline conflicts.

​
How to read the pair table

Page A and Page B are the two pages that may compete for the same intent.
  • Similarity: assessed cannibalization probability shown as a percentage. It is not a percentage of identical text or a measured ranking loss.
  • Overlap Matches: qualifying shared search queries with weak click-through evidence for both pages, rather than repeated words or matching paragraphs.
Results come from the latest available saved relationship snapshot for ready website pages. The page does not run a fresh live assessment simply because you open it. Only competing or overlapping relationships that pass the thresholds and recommend an action other than keeping both unchanged appear. An empty table can mean no qualifying saved evidence; it does not prove that the site has no competing pages. Prioritize pairs where:
  • Similarity is high.
  • Overlap matches are high.
  • Both URLs target high-value funnel stages.

​
What to do with flagged pairs

Use one of these actions for each pair:
  1. Merge pages when both target the same core intent.
  2. Split intent clearly by rewriting angle, scope, and title.
  3. Strengthen canonical internal linking when both pages should exist.
  4. Update metadata and headings to reduce ambiguity.

​
Quick weekly checklist

  1. Review highest-similarity pairs first.
  2. Decide merge, split, or relink per pair.
  3. Add implementation tickets with page owners.
  4. Recheck overlap after updates are published and knowledge is synced.

​
What to fix first

​
Team routine

  1. Weekly: triage new high-risk pairs.
  2. Bi-weekly: verify shipped fixes reduced overlap.
  3. Monthly: review recurring conflict clusters and template causes.

​
Keep in mind

  • This view depends on indexed project knowledge quality.
  • Not every overlap is harmful if user intent and funnel stage are distinct.
  • Fixes should be validated in rankings and conversion behavior, not only similarity scores.

​
Where to go next