Why coverage SEO is no longer effective

Hello everyone! If you have been doing SEO for a while, you have surely heard of the so-called "coverage SEO": that strategy that consists of creating dozens (or even hundreds) of pages designed to "cover" all possible variations of a main keyword. Often these are very similar articles, short, optimized for long-tail keywords, and created primarily with the goal of capturing as much organic traffic as possible.

Think of classic examples like: "Best smartphone 2026", "Best smartphone under 300 euros 2026", "Best Android smartphone 2026", "Best smartphone for photos 2026", "Best smartphone for gaming 2026"... and so on, until reaching 50, 80, or even 100 different variants.

It seems like a clever tactic: you occupy all the space of related searches, monopolize the SERPs, and bring home a lot of visits. Too bad that, in 2026, this approach is no longer considered a true editorial narrative... and Google has understood this very well.

What is coverage SEO really

Classic coverage SEO is a content production that mainly arises to cover as many queries as possible, not to offer unique and authentic value to the reader. These pages tend to share very recognizable characteristics: almost identical titles and introductions, the same repetitive scheme (like top 5/10 products + standard conclusions), texts of 400-800 words with very little original depth, absence of personal experience, real stories, or unique data. Essentially, they mainly serve to intercept low-intent or mid-funnel traffic, rather than truly solving a complex user problem.

Google, from the Helpful Content Update of 2022 to the Core Updates of December 2025 (completed in January 2026), has sent a very clear message:

> "We want to reward content created for people, not for search engines."

And mechanically done coverage SEO, without editorial soul, ends up exactly in the second category.

Why Google penalizes it (or heavily downgrades it)

In the last 12-18 months, we have seen a very clear pattern in affected sites:

First of all, Google SpamBrain and quality classifiers have become extremely good at recognizing when a site publishes large volumes of superficial pages. It is no longer necessary for them to be duplicated word for word: it is enough that they are "similar in added value" (i.e., almost none) to be considered thin content.

Then there is the E-E-A-T issue: Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness. If you publish 80 articles about smartphones without ever having used one, without real tests, original photos, or field comparisons, Google perceives it. Expertise is lacking.

Moreover, the Helpful Content Update (now integrated into core updates) evaluates the site as a whole. If you have 200 pages of "empty" coverage and only a dozen true and deep articles, the overall signal of the site becomes negative. Even your best pages are affected.

Finally, these pages often do not fully respond to the search intent. Anyone searching for "best smartphone 2026" wants an authoritative, updated guide, with real tests, honest pros and cons, perhaps a personal story. They do not want yet another list copied from Amazon with five lines of generic text.

Concrete result?

Many sites that in the past lived almost exclusively on coverage (especially in competitive niches like tech, finance, health, local services) have lost between 40% and 80% of organic traffic after the December 2025 Core Update. It is not always a matter of manual penalties: often it is an algorithmic downgrade.

The difference between "bad" coverage and "good" coverage

Is there still an intelligent way to do coverage without taking big risks?

Yes, but the approach must change completely.

The "old school" coverage – that with 50-100 very similar pages, short texts, and a repeated scheme – now has very low chances of surviving in 2026. On the contrary, those who create a few very deep pillar articles (even 3-8,000 words) enriched by thematic clusters with unique value, real tests, proprietary data, videos, infographics, and personal experiences have excellent chances of ranking well and resisting updates.

There is also a smart "hybrid" middle ground: shorter support pages, but that bring something original (a personal review, a video test, a unique comparison table created by you). The golden rule is simple: good coverage must be subordinated to an authentic editorial narrative, not the other way around.

In conclusion

Coverage SEO is not dead... only the poorly done coverage is dead, the one that was a trick to try to deceive the algorithm instead of truly serving people.

In 2026, Google rewards those who tell true stories, who demonstrate field expertise, who create content that makes the reader say: "Wow, I really found what I was looking for... and even more."