Positional Encoding in Ranking – Considers position within a document or page to rank relevance of text snippets – Next Gen SEO with Hyper-Intelligence

SUPERCHARGE YOUR ONLINE VISIBILITY! CONTACT US AND LET’S ACHIEVE EXCELLENCE TOGETHER!

This project introduces a relevance-ranking framework that evaluates web page content by jointly considering semantic similarity and positional context within the document structure. Unlike conventional methods that rely solely on semantic alignment, this approach factors in the structural importance and visual prominence of content segments—such as whether a snippet appears in a heading, paragraph, or list, and how early it appears in the content flow.

By assigning greater weight to content located in top-level sections or early in the reading order, the system better reflects how both search engines and users interpret page importance. This technique is particularly useful when benchmarking SEO content across competing websites, ensuring that not only what is said but also where it is said contributes to its final relevance score.

Each web page is decomposed into tagged content blocks like header, paragraphs, from which structured text is extracted and compared against a reference anchor statement using semantic similarity techniques. A final score is computed by combining this semantic score with a position-based weighting strategy, leading to a ranked list of the most impactful snippets per URL.

Purpose of the Project

The primary purpose of this project is to establish a more realistic and context-aware method of ranking content relevance for SEO evaluation and competitor analysis. Standard similarity-based comparisons often overlook the hierarchical and positional value of web content, treating all text uniformly regardless of its prominence.

This system addresses that gap by introducing positional encoding into the ranking process. The goal is to ensure that content segments are evaluated not only by what they convey semantically but also by how strategically they are positioned within a document. This dual-factor approach aligns more closely with how users consume content and how search engines prioritize visibility.

The project supports tasks such as:

• Identifying which content sections are most relevant and well-positioned for specific SEO topics.
• Comparing multiple service pages across organizations to assess messaging strength and focus.
• Enhancing SEO audit frameworks with position-weighted content analysis.

By integrating semantic relevance with structural positioning, the project offers a more accurate and actionable model for understanding page content effectiveness in competitive digital environments.

Understanding Positional Encoding in Ranking

The concept of Positional Encoding in Ranking is central to the project’s approach to evaluating content relevance on a web page. This strategy goes beyond traditional keyword matching by recognizing that the position of a text snippet within a page significantly influences its perceived importance and visibility. By integrating both semantic meaning and structural placement, the method ensures that relevance is measured in a way that mirrors how search engines and users interpret on-page content.

Positional Encoding: Capturing Structural Importance

Positional Encoding refers to the process of assigning importance to content based on where it appears within the structure of a web page. Rather than treating all text equally, this approach acknowledges that content found in certain areas — such as prominent headings or introductory paragraphs — often carries more weight in defining the page’s intent.

Key elements of positional encoding include:

• HTML Tag Significance:

Web pages are structured using HTML tags such as <h1>, <h2>, <p>, and <li>. These tags inherently reflect content hierarchy. For instance:

• Headings (<h1>, <h2>) typically define the main themes or sections.
• Paragraphs (<p>) provide detailed elaboration.
• List items (<li>) often support specific points or features.
• Content Order:

The order in which content appears also affects its prominence. Text placed near the top of a page, especially within meaningful tags, is often more visible and impactful to both users and search engines.

• Combined Structural Importance:

Positional encoding merges the semantic role of tags with their order of appearance, allowing the system to assess how prominently each snippet is positioned within the page.

This method reflects the understanding that not all content is equally visible or authoritative, even if thematically similar.

Ranking: Structuring Relevance by Priority

Ranking refers to the ordered prioritization of content based on its relevance to a specific topic or query. It involves evaluating text snippets across a page to determine which ones are most valuable in answering a user’s intent.

In the context of this project, ranking is shaped by two key influences:

• Thematic Alignment:

A content snippet is first evaluated for how closely it relates to a target concept, such as “Technical SEO” or “Advanced SEO Services.” This reflects the semantic relevance of the text.

• Structural Priority:

Snippets that are topically relevant and also strategically placed (e.g., in titles or early sections) are seen as more useful and authoritative. Ranking ensures that such content appears higher in evaluations.

By organizing snippets according to both what they say and where they appear, the system delivers a more accurate measure of a page’s communicative strength on a given topic.

Why Position Influences Perceived Relevance

The location of content within a page directly affects how quickly and confidently it is understood by both users and search engines. Prominent positions — like headlines and first paragraphs — are more likely to shape perception, receive clicks, and carry SEO weight.

Incorporating positional encoding into the ranking framework enables the evaluation to:

• Mirror real-world reading and browsing behavior.
• Highlight the most strategically placed, relevant content.
• Avoid overvaluing hidden or secondary information that may be less influential.

This approach aligns with the broader goals of modern SEO, where structure, readability, and semantic clarity are essential for both discoverability and user experience.

Why does the position of content on a page matter for SEO?

Search engines and users give more attention to content that appears early in the document or within structurally significant sections like headings and top paragraphs. Positionally prominent content is more likely to shape page intent, improve topical clarity, and influence search engine ranking decisions.

How does this help improve website SEO?

By identifying which parts of a page are carrying the most thematic weight and where improvements could be made, the system supports more strategic content planning. This can lead to:

• Better content alignment with search intent
• Enhanced visibility of important topics
• Improved topical authority across pages

How is this approach different from traditional SEO audits?

Traditional audits often focus on keyword presence, metadata, or backlink profiles. This project, however, introduces a content-centric and position-aware evaluation, which emphasizes how well a page communicates key topics through its structure — a dimension not typically explored in routine SEO analysis.

Is this relevant even if the content already targets the right keywords?

Even if the keywords are correct, poor placement or structure can reduce their effectiveness. This method ensures that relevance is reinforced by visibility, giving the right content the prominence it deserves.

How does this help website owners?

This project provides actionable insight into which content elements on a webpage are both semantically relevant and strategically placed for maximum visibility. By ranking content snippets based on their relevance to key topics and their structural position within the page, it becomes easier to identify whether important SEO themes are emphasized in the right areas—such as headings, introductory paragraphs, or other prominent sections. For a website operator, this means the ability to refine on-page content to align better with both user expectations and search engine algorithms. Ultimately, this leads to improved crawlability, enhanced user engagement, and stronger thematic authority, all of which contribute to better search rankings and more targeted traffic.

Libraries Used in the Project

requests

Purpose:

Used for making HTTP requests to retrieve the HTML content of the target webpages.

Why it’s important:

To analyze on-page SEO structure, the raw HTML of each webpage must be accessed. The requests library handles this in a reliable and straightforward manner by fetching page content programmatically.

BeautifulSoup (from bs4)

Purpose: Parses the HTML content and extracts structured data such as headings, paragraphs, and list items.

Why it’s important:

SEO analysis depends heavily on understanding content layout and structure. BeautifulSoup allows selective parsing of HTML tags (e.g., <h1>, <p>, <li>) to identify and extract text snippets from different semantic sections of a page.

sentence_transformers

Imported Components:

• SentenceTransformer
• util

Purpose: Provides pre-trained models for semantic similarity evaluation. The SentenceTransformer encodes text snippets into high-dimensional vectors, and util.pytorch_cos_sim is used to compute similarity scores.

Why it’s important:

Semantic relevance is a critical metric in this project. The models from sentence_transformers allow contextual understanding of text, enabling the comparison of content snippets against anchor SEO concepts like “Technical SEO” or “Advanced SEO.” This goes beyond keyword matching to assess true meaning.

Function extract_structured_blocks

The extract_structured_blocks function is designed to extract meaningful content from a webpage by focusing on relevant HTML elements and removing unnecessary sections. This function is a critical part of the project, as it helps gather the text snippets from web pages, which are later used in the ranking and positional encoding process.

Function Breakdown

1. Fetching HTML Content:

response = requests.get(url, timeout=15) response.raise_for_status()

This section sends an HTTP GET request to the provided URL and retrieves the HTML content of the page. If there is an issue with the request (such as a timeout or invalid URL), it raises an exception, and the function returns an empty list.

The content of the webpage is essential for analyzing the SEO structure. The function attempts to fetch this content efficiently while handling errors.

2. Parsing HTML with BeautifulSoup:

soup = BeautifulSoup(response.text, “html.parser”)

The HTML content fetched in the previous step is parsed using BeautifulSoup. This allows the HTML structure to be navigated and manipulated more easily.

Once the HTML is parsed, we can locate specific tags (e.g., <h1>, <p>, <li>) that are of interest in the SEO context.

3. Removing Unwanted Tags:

for tag in soup([“script”, “style”, “nav”, “header”, “footer”, “form”, “noscript”, “aside”, “a”]): tag.decompose()

This loop removes tags that are not relevant to the SEO analysis (such as navigation links, scripts, or forms). The decompose() method completely removes these tags and their contents from the parsed HTML.

Tags like <script>, <footer>, and <nav> contain code, metadata, or navigation elements that do not contribute to the content’s relevance. By removing them, we focus on the visible, meaningful content.

4. Extracting Relevant Tags:

tags_to_extract = [‘h1’, ‘h2’, ‘h3’, ‘p’, ‘li’] blocks = []

This defines the tags we are interested in (h1, h2, h3, p, and li), which typically contain important content on a webpage.

These tags represent headings, paragraphs, and list items, which are the primary blocks of text used in SEO content. The function then searches for these tags within the parsed HTML.

5. Filtering and Structuring Text:

for idx, tag in enumerate(soup.find_all(tags_to_extract)):

For each tag found, the function extracts its visible text, strips extra spaces, and ensures that the text is not too short (it must contain more than 3 words). The text is then stored alongside the tag type (e.g., h1, p) and its position on the page (using position_index).

This filtering ensures that only substantial, relevant content is considered. For example, very short snippets like “Learn More” or “Contact Us” might not provide enough value for SEO analysis, so they are excluded.

6. Returning the Content Blocks:

return blocks

The function returns a list of dictionaries, each containing the extracted text, the tag type, and the position index.

These structured blocks serve as the foundation for further analysis, where their relevance and position can be evaluated in the context of SEO.

Summary:

The extract_structured_blocks function is an essential component in extracting meaningful content from a webpage. By focusing on relevant tags and removing unnecessary content, it provides a clean and structured representation of a page’s key textual elements. This data is then used for SEO analysis, where it is scored based on semantic similarity and positional relevance.

load_model Function

The load_model function loads a pre-trained sentence transformer model used for generating semantic embeddings.

1. Model Loading:

return SentenceTransformer(model_name)

Purpose: Loads the specified sentence transformer model (default is “all-MiniLM-L6-v2”) and returns it for use in generating sentence embeddings.

The load_model function loads a sentence transformer model that is capable of creating semantic embeddings for text, enabling the comparison of content based on meaning rather than exact wording.

Model Used: all-MiniLM-L6-v2

The project leverages the all-MiniLM-L6-v2 model, a high-performance sentence embedding model from the SentenceTransformers family. This model is integral to evaluating semantic similarity between content blocks, enabling ranking systems to move beyond surface-level keyword matches and toward meaning-aware content comparisons. This section details the model’s design, why it was selected, and its specific value in SEO-related tasks.

About the Model Family: SentenceTransformer

all-MiniLM-L6-v2 is built using the SentenceTransformer framework — a library that extends transformer architectures like BERT to generate dense vector representations of entire sentences or passages. Unlike traditional transformers which focus on token-level tasks (like classification or translation), SentenceTransformers are optimized for:

• Semantic Search
• Sentence-Level Similarity Comparison
• Text Clustering and Ranking

This makes it ideal for comparing full content snippets in SEO scenarios, such as evaluating how closely a block of content relates to a target theme or search intent.

Why all-MiniLM-L6-v2 Was Selected

Among various pre-trained SentenceTransformer models, all-MiniLM-L6-v2 was chosen based on three critical factors:

• Lightweight Architecture: It is a distilled version of larger transformer models, offering excellent performance without the high computational cost.
• Fast Inference: This makes it suitable for real-time or batch-processing of content from multiple URLs.
• Competitive Accuracy: Despite its compact size, it delivers strong semantic representation capabilities, often rivaling larger models in similarity tasks.

This balance of speed and accuracy makes it well-suited for comparing multiple content blocks efficiently, even across large pages.

How It Supports SEO-Focused Tasks

The model plays a foundational role in the semantic analysis layer of the project. Specific ways it enhances SEO evaluation include:

·         Contextual Relevance Detection: Rather than counting keyword overlap, the model determines whether a block of text means the same thing as the target keyword or topic — even if phrased differently.

·         Intelligent Content Comparison Across Pages: Helps identify where competing pages may address the same topic more effectively, enabling content audits and benchmarking.

·         Ranking Based on Semantic Proximity: Content blocks are embedded and compared to a target phrase (e.g., “Technical SEO audit”) to determine relevance based on meaning, not just text match.

Role in the Project Workflow

In this project, the model is applied in the following way:

• Content Embedding: Each extracted block of visible webpage content (headings, paragraphs, lists) is converted into a dense vector using the model.
• Anchor Embedding: A predefined anchor phrase or SEO-relevant query is also embedded using the same model.
• Semantic Similarity Scoring: Cosine similarity is computed between the anchor vector and each content block’s vector to assess alignment.
• Final Ranking: These scores are later combined with positional weights to determine which blocks are both relevant and strategically placed within the page.

Strategic SEO Benefits

Using all-MiniLM-L6-v2 enables a deeper level of SEO analysis beyond what traditional methods can achieve. Notable benefits include:

• Better Content Targeting: Understand whether important topics are clearly communicated on a page.
• Improved On-Page Strategy: Help prioritize where key information should be placed for better visibility and SEO impact.
• Competitor Gap Analysis: Compare semantic coverage across pages to identify missed opportunities or strengths.

The all-MiniLM-L6-v2 model provides a lightweight yet powerful way to incorporate semantic understanding into SEO evaluations. By focusing on the meaning behind text, it aligns perfectly with the project’s goal of combining relevance and position to determine how well content supports its intended search value. Its integration brings structure, intelligence, and depth to on-page SEO assessments that go beyond simple keyword-based scoring systems.

Function: compute_cosine_sim

This function computes the cosine similarity between two sentence embeddings. It is a core step in measuring how semantically close a content block is to a target anchor phrase.

return util.pytorch_cos_sim(a, b).item()

How It Works:

a, b: Represent sentence embeddings (dense vector representations) of two text inputs.

util.pytorch_cos_sim(a, b): Uses the SentenceTransformers utility to calculate cosine similarity.

.item(): Extracts the similarity score as a standard float.

Understanding Cosine Similarity

Cosine similarity is a metric used to measure how similar two vectors are in terms of their direction, regardless of their magnitude. It is defined mathematically as:

cosine_similarity(A,B)= A.B / ∥A∥∥B∥

• 1.0 -> The vectors are perfectly aligned (identical in meaning).
• 0.0 -> The vectors are orthogonal (completely unrelated).
• -1.0 -> The vectors point in opposite directions (negatively correlated).

In this project, cosine similarity enables a numerical understanding of semantic closeness between:

• A content block from a webpage.
• A predefined SEO anchor or intent phrase.

This is critical for semantic ranking, where not just the presence of keywords, but the actual meaning of the content is taken into account.

Function: score_blocks

This function calculates a relevance score for each content block by combining semantic similarity with positional importance. The result is a ranked list of snippets that are both contextually relevant and structurally prominent.

TAG_WEIGHTS = {‘h1’: 1.0, ‘h2’: 0.9, ‘h3’: 0.8, ‘p’: 0.7, ‘li’: 0.6}:

HTML tags are assigned different weights based on their semantic importance on a webpage. Headings receive higher scores than paragraph or list items.

def score_blocks(blocks, query_text, model, alpha=0.85, beta=0.15):

• blocks: Structured content from the webpage.
• query_text: The SEO anchor phrase or search intent.
• model: Preloaded SentenceTransformer model.
• alpha, beta: Weights controlling the balance between semantic similarity and positional factors.

Key Steps Inside the Function:

1. Encode the Query

query_embedding = model.encode(query_text, convert_to_tensor=True)

Converts the query text into an embedding vector for comparison.

2. Loop Through Each Content Block:

For every block:

• Encode its text.
• Compute semantic similarity with the query.
• Retrieve the tag weight (e.g., h1 = 1.0).
• Compute a position score that gives preference to content appearing earlier on the page.
• Combine these into a final score.

Final Score Calculation

Each content block is assigned a final score to reflect both its semantic relevance and its structural importance on the page.

·         Semantic Similarity

• Captures how closely the block’s content aligns with the query meaning.
• Computed via cosine similarity between embeddings of the block and query.
• Score ranges from 0 (no similarity) to 1 (identical meaning).

·         Positional Factor

Averages two layout-aware metrics:

o Tag Score: Importance weight based on HTML tags (e.g., <h1> = 1.0, <li> = 0.6).

o Position Score: Earlier content scores higher. Formula: 1 / (1 + position_index).

positional_factor=tag_score+position_score / 2

·         Final Score Formula

final_score=semantic_similarity×(0.6+0.4×positional_factor)

• Gives more weight to semantic match, while position adjusts for visibility.
• Ensures highly relevant, well-placed snippets rank higher.

The formula scales semantic similarity by how well-positioned the content is.

Content closer to the top or in more semantically strong tags (like headings) receives a boost.

3. Sort by Final Score

scored_blocks.sort(key=lambda x: x[“final_score”], reverse=True)

Blocks are returned in descending order of relevance.

Why This Matters

This scoring mechanism ensures that SEO analysis considers not just what the content says, but where it appears. By combining semantic understanding and structural hierarchy, the model mimics how search engines and users interpret the importance of on-page content.

This section demonstrates how the system identifies and ranks relevant content blocks from a single webpage based on semantic and structural significance.

Interpretation:

High Semantic Alignment: All top results directly discuss HTTP headers, aligning well with the query intent.

Structural Priority: Headings (<h2>) were given prominence due to their semantic role, and appear higher in the list when also semantically relevant.

Balanced Scoring: Paragraphs with clear, explanatory content still score competitively if positioned early and semantically rich.

This illustrates the model’s ability to surface not just matching keywords, but structurally significant answers placed in key parts of the page.

Result Analysis

Query: HTTP headers

Purpose: To evaluate how well two different webpages respond to the same topic by ranking their most relevant content snippets.

This type of analysis helps assess topical coverage, content structure, and semantic alignment, all of which contribute to SEO performance and user satisfaction.

Analysis

URL 1: https://thatware.co/handling-different-document-urls-using-http-headers/

·         All top results are from <h2> tags, indicating clear structure and intentional topic segmentation.

·         Score Range: 0.61 – 0.75

• Scores above 0.70 reflect strong semantic alignment with the query — the content is not only topically accurate but placed prominently on the page.
• Scores between 0.60 – 0.70 indicate good relevance, particularly when paired with structural tags like <h2>.

·         This URL demonstrates:

• High topical coverage on “HTTP headers.”
• Well-structured and accessible content that benefits both users and search engine crawlers.
• Strong potential for ranking for related queries due to its focused content and use of semantically rich headings.

SEO Impact:

• Google favors clear sectioning and early visibility of relevant content.
• The use of <h2> tags helps enhance snippet generation for featured results and improves crawlability.
• High relevance scores ensure the content aligns with actual searcher intent, improving topic authority.

Analysis

URL 2: https://thatware.co/march-2025-core-update-insights/

In-Depth Analysis:

• Score Range: 0.16 – 0.20, which is significantly lower.
• Content appears to cover general SEO practices, not the specific topic of HTTP headers.
• Use of tags like <li> and <h3> with vague associations weakens semantic precision.
• Indicates that the page is not optimized for the target query, despite having SEO context.

SEO Impact:

• Search engines may not consider this page relevant for “HTTP headers” queries.
• Lacking topic-focused structure and depth can reduce organic visibility.
• Signals a content gap that, if addressed, could improve the page’s topical reach and ranking.

Score Interpretation

Score Range -> Interpretation

• 0.70 – 1.00 -> Strong semantic relevance (ideal for SEO)
• 0.50 – 0.69 -> Moderate relevance, could be improved
• 0.30 – 0.49 -> Weak relevance, possibly adjacent topic
• < 0.30 -> Minimal relevance or topic mismatch

How This Supports SEO Strategy

• Identifies which content blocks are semantically aligned with high-value keywords or search intent.
• Helps determine where to focus optimization efforts — whether rewriting, restructuring, or adding content.
• Supports content audits by revealing which pages or sections underperform for specific topics.

This approach moves beyond surface-level keyword matching and provides a content intelligence layer — guiding site owners to make data-driven improvements that align with user intent and search engine expectations.

Result Analysis

Objective

To evaluate how well content from various web pages semantically aligns with the query using a sentence-level semantic relevance scoring system. Each sentence or heading block is assigned a relevance score between 0 and 1, where higher scores indicate stronger semantic alignment with the query.

Score Interpretation Thresholds

Score Range -> Interpretation

• 0.70 – 1.00 -> Excellent semantic match — directly answers or reflects query intent with highly relevant phrasing.
• 0.50 – 0.99 -> Good match — contains relevant topic coverage but may be slightly broad or peripheral.
• 0.30 – 0.49 -> Moderate match — somewhat related but lacks specificity or clarity in alignment.
• Below 0.30 -> Low match — generic, vague, or off-topic from query perspective.

Findings Across Pages

High Relevance Scores (≥ 0.80)

• Several blocks scored above 0.83, mostly within <p> tags describing “services provided” or explicit mentions of advanced SEO.
• Such scores reflect direct semantic overlap with the query. These blocks tend to be concise, focused, and contain service-defining language like “advanced SEO”, “enterprise-level optimization”, or “strategic SEO support”.
• High-performing blocks often appear near the top of the content, enhancing topical prioritization — a signal also beneficial for search engine indexing.

Implication: High-scoring segments indicate that the content is well-targeted for the intended query. This level of semantic alignment helps the page perform better for specific, high-intent keywords, increasing the chances of ranking in the top results.

Good Scores (0.65 – 0.79)

• Many <h2> and <h3> tags with titles like “What is Advanced SEO”, “Benefits of Advanced SEO”, or “On-Page SEO Services” scored in the 0.68–0.72 range.
• These blocks provide solid supporting content and topical depth. While not as tightly aligned as exact matches, they help cover user sub-intents and improve content richness.
• The use of well-structured subheadings and topic-relevant anchor sections contributes to a clear hierarchical content structure, aiding both user readability and SEO crawlability.

Implication: Good-scoring content enhances semantic coverage and breadth, supporting topic completeness. These sections improve overall authority of the page, helping it rank for secondary or related terms.

Moderate Scores (0.50 – 0.64)

• Paragraphs with broader SEO discussions, brand-focused language, or vague service mentions often fell into this range.
• Content in this band may include promotional or emotional language, such as “boost your rankings” or “we are a top-rated SEO company”, without specifically referencing advanced SEO services.
• In some cases, these blocks appear repetitive or lack sufficient keyword anchoring, diluting topical relevance.

Implication: Moderate scoring blocks are less likely to contribute directly to search performance for precise queries. While they may support brand voice or engagement, they should not dominate top-of-page content for targeted SEO efforts.

Low Scores (< 0.50)

• Content in this range was generally non-specific, overly promotional, or unrelated to the query.
• Examples include vague bullet points, overly broad marketing phrases, and statements with no clear reference to SEO service type or depth.
• Some low-scoring segments may even appear multiple times with slightly varied wording, which can contribute to semantic redundancy.

Implication: These blocks offer little SEO value for a query like “advanced SEO services”. Reducing their frequency, refining their language, or replacing them with focused, value-driven content could improve both relevance and ranking potential.

Recommendations

• Elevate high-scoring content — such as service definitions and structured overviews — closer to the beginning of the page.
• Use descriptive subheadings (h2, h3) that echo the core query to improve both semantic strength and user scanability.
• Minimize or reframe low-relevance promotional text to include service-specific terminology and value propositions.
• Ensure that the top 3–5 sentences or headings per page score above 0.70 to maximize search relevance for service-related queries.

What should be the first step after reviewing content relevance scores?

The first action is to analyze both the high and low scoring blocks across your pages. High-scoring blocks offer insight into what your audience finds semantically aligned with their intent — usually these are well-structured headings or clearly written paragraphs that directly answer the search query. In contrast, low-scoring blocks signal a potential disconnect between your content and user expectations. These could be outdated, verbose, overly generic, or lacking in keyword alignment. Begin by creating a prioritized list of these low-performing sections, especially if they appear on high-traffic or conversion-critical pages.

How can this analysis improve SEO performance?

By identifying which blocks of text best match a query, this project helps pinpoint high-performing content and surface areas where the content falls short. This allows focused content revisions, improved keyword targeting, and better alignment with user intent — all of which support stronger SEO performance.

What do the similarity scores actually tell us about the website content?

The scores reveal how closely different sections of a webpage align with a user’s search intent. High scores (0.70 and above) indicate strong semantic alignment with the query — meaning the content answers the question or addresses the topic well. Lower scores highlight areas where content may not meet search expectations.

How can this scoring system guide the overall content strategy?

The results help you understand which topics, formats, and structures are resonating with user intent, allowing you to reverse-engineer success. If certain services or product sections consistently score low across multiple pages, it indicates the need for content enrichment, rephrasing, or even redefining page purpose.

You can also use patterns from top-scoring content — such as frequent use of informative H2s, keyword-rich intros, or bullet points — to create templates for new content. This data-driven approach ensures every future page is built with both user intent and search engine algorithms in mind.

Can this data improve how content briefs or SEO guidelines are created?

Yes, this analysis can transform generic content briefs into strategic blueprints. By identifying which content blocks (e.g., H2 headers or intro paragraphs) consistently rank higher semantically, you gain clear insights into what structure and phrasing align with user expectations.

Content teams can use this data to develop SEO-aligned wireframes, specifying ideal placements for key phrases, optimal paragraph lengths, and recommended heading formats. This drastically improves consistency and reduces content misalignment at the planning stage.

Should website layout or design change based on scoring positions?

Yes, the analysis includes positional weighting, which reflects how early or deep in the page a block appears. High-scoring but low-positioned blocks suggest that valuable content might be buried too deep, reducing its visibility to both users and crawlers.

Consider elevating these blocks closer to the top or integrating them into summary sections, feature boxes, or sticky headers. Content placement isn’t just a UX decision — it can have SEO consequences by affecting content discoverability and perceived relevance.

Final Thoughts

This project demonstrates how semantic relevance, when analyzed at the block level using advanced NLP techniques, can unlock a more nuanced understanding of how well web content aligns with real user intent. By leveraging a transformer-based model fine-tuned for sentence embeddings, we were able to evaluate not just whether a page covers a topic, but how effectively and where within the page that coverage occurs.

The combination of semantic scoring, positional encoding, and tag-based importance creates a multidimensional evaluation framework. This goes beyond keyword matching — it captures meaning, structure, and visual hierarchy, offering a comprehensive view of content performance through the lens of both users and search engines.

From a strategic perspective, the insights gained through this methodology offer clients actionable guidance across multiple dimensions:

• Which sections need to be rewritten, restructured, or promoted?
• What types of content formatting (e.g., H2 headings or concise intros) consistently drive relevance?
• How does a page’s layout and block positioning affect its discoverability and SEO strength?

Importantly, this approach supports scalability and repeatability. As new queries, topics, or competitor benchmarks emerge, the same system can be applied to continually improve content alignment — ensuring sustained relevance in an evolving SEO landscape.

Ultimately, content optimization is no longer about simply “having the right keywords” — it’s about semantic alignment, structural clarity, and intent-driven composition. This project offers a clear path to achieving all three, providing not just diagnostics, but direction.

---

Tuhin Banik

Thatware | Founder & CEO

Tuhin is recognized across the globe for his vision to revolutionize digital transformation industry with the help of cutting-edge technology. He won bronze for India at the Stevie Awards USA as well as winning the India Business Awards, India Technology Award, Top 100 influential tech leaders from Analytics Insights, Clutch Global Front runner in digital marketing, founder of the fastest growing company in Asia by The CEO Magazine and is a TEDx speaker and BrightonSEO speaker.

Connect with ThatWare’s Social Channels 👉

---