When similar pages are acceptable in SEO | Lillian Purge

When similar pages are acceptable in SEO

From experience one of the most common SEO concerns I hear from business owners is the fear of having similar pages on their website. There is a widespread belief that search engines will automatically penalise sites for content that looks alike. In my opinion this fear is often overstated and misunderstood. Similar pages are not inherently bad for SEO. The real issue is whether those pages serve a clear purpose for users.

SEO is not about forcing every page to be completely unique at all costs. It is about relevance clarity and intent. When similar pages exist for good reasons and are structured properly they can perform very well in search results. The problem only arises when similarity exists without purpose.

Understanding why pages become similar

Similar pages usually appear because a business offers the same service in multiple locations or to slightly different audiences. From experience this is particularly common in local service businesses franchises and professional services.

In these cases similarity is natural. The core service does not change dramatically from one page to another. What changes is the context. Location audience intent or stage of the buying journey.

Search engines understand this as long as the differences are clear and meaningful. Similar structure or shared explanations are not an issue on their own.

Location pages are a common and valid example

One of the clearest examples of acceptable similar pages is location based service pages. A chiropractor solicitor or tradesperson may serve multiple towns. Each location page will naturally share service descriptions.

From experience these pages work well when they are tailored to the location rather than mechanically duplicated. This means referencing the area travel expectations local concerns and practical details relevant to that audience.

When each page answers the question can you provide this service here search engines treat them as distinct even if the core service explanation overlaps.

Service variations with shared foundations

Another acceptable use of similar pages is when services overlap but are not identical. For example different treatment types consultation options or care plans may share common explanations.

From experience it is reasonable for pages to reuse foundational information while expanding on what makes each option different. The goal is not to rewrite everything but to add clarity where it matters.

Search engines expect some overlap when topics are closely related. What they look for is differentiation in intent rather than artificial uniqueness.

Intent matters more than wording

In my opinion this is the most important point. Search engines evaluate pages based on the intent they satisfy not just the words they use.

If two similar pages target different intents they can coexist perfectly well. For example one page may be informational while another is transactional. Another may target new patients while another supports returning patients.

Even if parts of the wording overlap the purpose of the page is different. From experience this distinction matters far more than surface level similarity.

Internal competition is the real risk

The real danger with similar pages is not duplication but internal competition. When two pages target the same query with no clear differentiation search engines struggle to decide which one to rank.

This can dilute performance and cause both pages to underperform. From experience responsible SEO focuses on clarity. Each page should have a defined role within the site structure.

If you can clearly explain why both pages exist and what each is for then similarity is rarely a problem.

Canonicalisation and structure help manage similarity

Technical tools can also help manage acceptable similarity. Canonical tags internal linking and clear hierarchy all signal which pages matter most for which topics.

From experience well structured sites handle similarity far better than flat unorganised ones. Search engines are very good at understanding relationships when structure supports it.

Similarity without structure causes confusion. Similarity with structure provides clarity.

When similar pages become a problem

Similar pages become an SEO issue when they exist solely to manipulate rankings or when they add no value for users. This often happens when pages are created in bulk with minimal variation.

From experience these pages usually lack local context intent clarity or unique purpose. Search engines are increasingly good at identifying this and may ignore or devalue such content.

The test is simple. If removing one of the pages would not negatively affect a real user then it probably should not exist.

How to judge your own site responsibly

If you are unsure whether similar pages are acceptable ask a practical question. Do these pages help different users accomplish different goals.

If the answer is yes then similarity is usually acceptable. If the answer is no then consolidation is often the better option.

Responsible SEO is about serving users clearly not gaming algorithms.

Final thoughts on similarity and SEO

In my opinion similar pages are acceptable in SEO when they exist for users not search engines. Overlap is natural when services and audiences overlap.

From experience the best performing sites are not those with perfectly unique wording everywhere but those with clear intent strong structure and genuine usefulness.

SEO rewards clarity. Similar pages are only a problem when clarity is missing.