Is "fluff" SEO-content still important in 2025?

Oh man. When you're in a state of hurry, time sure feel like it's moving slow. I wondered when I was going to see changes. I'm still making these changes but most big pages are done. I've seen positive movement since I began. I felt like months had passed and seeing a big downswing today worried me. Then I looked at this thread and it's only been two weeks, and I'm still making changes, not all pages are done. So far, I've already almost 2x'd my conversions and obviously, it hasn't even been a month. Suffice to say, this seems to still matter? Evidently months need to pass before you see any changes and I'm already seeing positive developments. The sudden downswing today just demoralized me a bit.

Man I am repulsed.

I've used GPT to evaluate mine and my competitors content, and have it generate content with good E-E-A-T. I've generated content that puts my competitors to shame. Yet, when I upload my site and theirs for comparison, it ranks mine only slightly better.

I then thought I'd try doing the same sort of evaluation of my old GPT-fluff that is stored in the web archive. I upload a PDF of my old GPT-generated fluff – I'm talking generic nonsense generated in two strokes.

GPT ranks that as amazing (8.5-9/10). If I follow it up with my new content, it grades my new content as perfect (10/10). However, if I ask it to grade my new content straight away, it gives it a 8-8.5/10 at best, and if I compare it to my competitors, I typically lose my a slim margin. Old content wins.

It makes no sense.

I've used GPT to evaluate my new content and trying to get it to give me 10's, and now it's telling me my old content was amazing as well. I am so fucking spent, I am losing my mind.

My competitors have a top list like this:
"Best insurances 2025
- X
- Y
- Z"

My top list looks like this:
"Best insurances 2025
The best insurance 2025 is X, based off our test ...
- X: Explanation, offer
- Y: Explanation, offer
- Z: Explanation, offer
Summary
UGC"

Yet, when I feed both pages to GPT, it ranks their as "more E-E-A-T".

I have no earthly idea what I am doing anymore. When Google likes you, everything you do makes sense, when it doesn't, you just feel like your website is a mess.

In 2025, SEO fluff still seems to dominate rankings, but long-term authority likely favors unique, data-driven content—even if results are slower.

I've spent 22 days asking GPT to write authoritative, E-E-A-T content for my site. I wrote them as FAQ, because I didn't want to bulk replace all the unique content on my site with generic fluff, I just replaced the FAQ, which was thin, with the generic fluff that shows "authority". While doing this, I uploaded screenshots to GPT asking it to rate my content compared to the competitors and I tried going for being the best.

10 days after starting, I also decided to improve the unique research on my site. I added diagrams, charts and E-E-A-T signals (quotes by our author, internal links to additional research, change in language that explain process and sources as well as freshness). I also added unique research about recent changes to the industry.

15 days I did serious redesigns that gave the website more life, looked more consistent, less thin and more authoritative (final design change was made today, color change that gives off a more authoritative feel).

17 days I adjusted author profiles and made them more authoritative.

18 days I fed content to GPT and it said it lacked a risk warning, so I added risk sections with tips from our author to every page.

22 days and I have seen maybe $1k in traffic gain, but nothing major. The website is night and day different now in terms of E-E-A-T. Ranks are still pending +40 ranks one day, -60 ranks another, swinging back and forth meaninglessly.

I have a feeling all these changes will have 0 effect on the website, once again, and when I feed the old fluffy archived versions of the site to GPT, it gives it a 10/10 in terms of everything, so I am disillusioned. My content owns the competition now but I'm starting to think there is something about the domain – though competitors have even worse names than me and rank 5 times better.

I am just so fucking spent. I am going to consider starting something else.

People don't have time to read bullshit, most readers are already lazy, if you put too much useless content, they will just go back to the search page or search on TikTok to have a direct answer

"Fluff" SEO content is outdated. With google's recent updates targeting AI-generated content, high quality is now the top priority for ranking.

AKAKA1998 said:

People don't have time to read bullshit, most readers are already lazy, if you put too much useless content, they will just go back to the search page or search on TikTok to have a direct answer

Click to expand...

AI tells me the bullshit is for Google to determine authority, not necessarily for the users. You give the users the thing they want, above the fold, and everything else is for Google to determine authority.

I’ve seen positive developments, 2x’d my traffic value (6k->12k) since making these changes, but I’m still 1/10th of the traffic of my competitors whose content I beat strongly.

Maybe I will have to wait for the next core update. I’ve 2x’d the traffic value since making these changes and I suspect that is without a core update — have we had one? That is a positive sign? I don’t want to get my hopes up. I want to improve the site further but I just don’t know how. Even AI ranks it as the best, only lacking in social proof, which I will improve next. You don’t want to overdo it either but I’m achieving a balance.

TurboCharge said:

I'm talking the old "What is a loan?", "How do you get a loan?" type of content where the goal is to stuff as much keywords and LSI as naturally possible for the hope of ranking? GPT tells me it's necessary for Google to determine authority, but is it really? I see a lot of old website with well-written SEO content struggling, and a bunch of new websites with generic fluff making it. What is the point of this when users don't read it anyway, GPT can generate it on a whim, and it tells Google absolutely nothing about the website except a bad UX?

I changed strategies from generating SEO-fluff to generating "unique research" where we only post unique data, based on our own research, present in a SEO-friendly way. For example, instead of writing 500 words about what impacts pricing of a product, we now calculate the price directly and answer the query with a number.

The content is much better and I bet it's much better for SEO. But did our rank improve? Not at all. Struggling more than before. Our content is better than the competitors and yet we are performing way worse. Thus the question: is SEO fluff still necessary for SEO? Should we bulk generate a bunch of keyword rich garbage? Does that work still in 2025?

Click to expand...

Fluff no longer works. You need very good to the point content. Fluff type of websites died many years ago. You can verify this in top results you see on Google yourself.

awesomewebsites said:

Fluff no longer works. You need very good to the point content. Fluff type of websites died many years ago. You can verify this in top results you see on Google yourself.

Click to expand...

But all sites that rely on SEO traffic (ie. not big brand sites with tons of authoritative backlinks) have that content. I think it helps because even as a user, if you scroll the page, you do expect to see content that describes the product and shows expertise? I'm picturing wanting to sign a home insurance and I visit the page of a brand I never knew existed. They'll include all the reasons why I should choose them, but as I scroll, if that is all there is and they don't cover how a home insurance actually can help me generally, I'll probably think lesser of them. Does that make sense?

So this fluff actually seems to be necessary. The important part is to tie it back to the service and how you help the visitor in that aspect. I've come to realize this as I've worked on this. Now, the next thought is whether or not hiding the fluff behind the FAQ, which is an accordion (hidden on load), is fine. I think it should be, Google is indexing it. I also wonder how you can know when you've added sufficient fluff.

I've been in the game a long time seen every phase of this evolution. There was a time when SEO basically meant pumping out fluff content. The more What is X articles you had the better. Google didn’t really understand as long as it saw the keyword that was enough. But times changed. Or did they really. That part is still a bit fuzzy


Now what you are doing data driven content straight to the point answers is genuinely high quality. It saves users time and if the page is well structured UX is great too. Logically Google should love this. But it doesn’t seem to at least not as quickly or consistently as we would expect. Because Google still leans on old signals as a safety blanket. One of those is the classic volume of content and contextual keyword density


Long story short fluff content still works. Especially for new sites starting from scratch. Because Google doesn’t know who you are. You say I’m good at this but if you don’t have session time clicks backlinks or other user signals to back it up Google won’t trust you. Blind keyword spam doesn’t fly anymore but broad keyword rich content that matches search intent is still a tool to stay afloat. Low quality but dense content often outperforms high quality but sparse content. Sad but true


Your strategy is solid you are on the right track but just doing the right thing isn’t always enough. The game still involves a bit of fill the page up. If your goal is rankings sometimes you have to sprinkle in that old school fluff. Even with good UX and solid data those soft padding paragraphs boost time on page help with topic coverage and send the signal to Google that you are serious about the niche


So unfortunately even in 2025 producing a bit of junk is still part of the job. Not all of it but some. A balanced approach probably works best. Combine your original data with niche content but don’t ignore the foundation of keyword coverage. Just because people don’t read it doesn’t mean Google doesn’t. It still relies on signals that assume someone is reading


Final word You are doing it right but the system still needs a little gaming to work. The job is still a bit dirty still a bit grey. If you want to stay clean you have to be okay with growing slow. But if you want to grow fast you still have to get your hands dirty

Emrhnnn55 said:

I've been in the game a long time seen every phase of this evolution. There was a time when SEO basically meant pumping out fluff content. The more What is X articles you had the better. Google didn’t really understand as long as it saw the keyword that was enough. But times changed. Or did they really. That part is still a bit fuzzy


Now what you are doing data driven content straight to the point answers is genuinely high quality. It saves users time and if the page is well structured UX is great too. Logically Google should love this. But it doesn’t seem to at least not as quickly or consistently as we would expect. Because Google still leans on old signals as a safety blanket. One of those is the classic volume of content and contextual keyword density


Long story short fluff content still works. Especially for new sites starting from scratch. Because Google doesn’t know who you are. You say I’m good at this but if you don’t have session time clicks backlinks or other user signals to back it up Google won’t trust you. Blind keyword spam doesn’t fly anymore but broad keyword rich content that matches search intent is still a tool to stay afloat. Low quality but dense content often outperforms high quality but sparse content. Sad but true


Your strategy is solid you are on the right track but just doing the right thing isn’t always enough. The game still involves a bit of fill the page up. If your goal is rankings sometimes you have to sprinkle in that old school fluff. Even with good UX and solid data those soft padding paragraphs boost time on page help with topic coverage and send the signal to Google that you are serious about the niche


So unfortunately even in 2025 producing a bit of junk is still part of the job. Not all of it but some. A balanced approach probably works best. Combine your original data with niche content but don’t ignore the foundation of keyword coverage. Just because people don’t read it doesn’t mean Google doesn’t. It still relies on signals that assume someone is reading


Final word You are doing it right but the system still needs a little gaming to work. The job is still a bit dirty still a bit grey. If you want to stay clean you have to be okay with growing slow. But if you want to grow fast you still have to get your hands dirty

Click to expand...

I just wish it wasn't so impossible to gauge. A big concern I have now is that I reuse a lot of the content (the unique data) with the keywords changed. I'm considering fixing that too but it would require a complete overhaul (once again) of the entire content on the site, and I'm just too fatigued to do it again.

For example, H1: Insurance. Unique intro. Serve user's intent. Unique data that analyzes price with content that is the same on all pages, eg.: "To compare the price[...same on all pages]. The cheapest insurance right now is [X], which costs [Y] per month. This means [Z] would cost you [Y2] a year. See the table below for details. We gather our data directly from insurance companies and updated them last on [date]." I just don't see why I would have to abandon using a template and variables for the unique research in favor of unique wording for each page. I couldn't fit in many long tail keywords here.

After plenty of sections with unique charts, tables, graphs and research, comes the FAQ with the fluff. 10-20 questions depending on the page. "What is home insurance?", etc. Each answer ends with how our site helps them in that regard.

Now, I am considering whether or not I need to modify the unique research for each page, but I don't see why I would have to, and Google indexes it just fine. The FAQ has the fluff and plenty of long tail keywords in them. The data has the main keyword in the header, and maybe twice in the intro and finally once in the summary. The rest is data and tables.

Feeding my page to GPT and Gemini, it constantly comes out on top as the best page right now. Good UI, good UX, most complete of all, highest E-E-A-T on content, best serving the user's intent.

Started writing when I made this thread. Wrote fluff over the course of 20 days. One week in, I added plenty of additional research and improved the research already on the page (examples include comparisons of insurance companies pricings, charts, recent pricing changes, sections for cheapest/most picked/highest customer satisfactions/etc). Continued writing fluff as I improved the main comparison tool (added more visible data, more features, better design/UX). A few more days in, improved E-E-A-T (improved author bios and added more E-E-A-T language to content, increased freshness with dates). A few more days in, considered the importance of the start page – changed its focus from generic to very focused (examples include generic H1s going from "Find the best product for you" to "We help you find the best home insurance today", FAQ about why they should use our service, realtime data on the start page and more content about how we uniquely help the user). During this, I also improved the intros to each page. They used to be unengaging and too long or too short (3 paragraphs with links or two sentences). I rewrote them to be more engaging, direct and keyword + LSI rich (eg. instead of: "Finding the best home insurance can be difficult because of a magnitude of alternatives. On [X] we help you find the best home insurance, so you can pick the right one for you", I'd write: "Home insurance helps you [A]/[-B]/[C]. On [X] we help you compare home insurance and give you the right tools to identify the best insurance for your home. We list home insurance with [D]/[E]/[F], and help you [G]/[H]/[-I]/. This lets you [J] and [K] – easy and effective with your safety in mind.").

Edit: Forgot to mention, on the fourth week, I also updated the site structure. What used to be a 4-level deep page-path, I turned into 2-level, for example: "/insurance/private-insurance/villa-insurance/home-insurance/" -> /insurance/home-insurance/". As I improved the focus of the start page, I realized the benefit of a flat site structure. The closer a page is to the start page, the more it shows expertise on that topic.

It's now been more than a month since I started. I'm currently working on a new money page but after this, honestly, I'm done. I know the site lacks social proof, and the domain name remains vague. I might consider adding social proof but I am honestly considering just copying the site to a different domain and start over. Change some wording but just start over. Some EMD, maybe. I don't know how much more I can improve it.

Effect so far:
Just a few days into adding the fluff and modifying the intros to the pages (turning too short into too long, corrected to engaging middle ground later in the month), I began seeing movements. About two weeks into it, I'd gained $2k in traffic value ($6k->$8k), mostly from fluff, other improvements hadn't been made yet. By three weeks in of continuous work, I'd doubled the traffic value ($6k->$12). Fourth week and up until now (sixth week now) – still improving the site – traffic value has stagnated and some keywords have dropped. Seeing some keywords drop has been demoralizing.

I just don't know what more I can do. After I am done with today's work, I don't know what I'll do anymore. The site likely won't climb much, I can feel it, and right now, it eats the competitors ($60–$70k traffic value) for lunch, technically, UX-wise, content-wise and SEO-wise.

TurboCharge said:

I'm talking the old "What is a loan?", "How do you get a loan?" type of content where the goal is to stuff as much keywords and LSI as naturally possible for the hope of ranking? GPT tells me it's necessary for Google to determine authority, but is it really? I see a lot of old website with well-written SEO content struggling, and a bunch of new websites with generic fluff making it. What is the point of this when users don't read it anyway, GPT can generate it on a whim, and it tells Google absolutely nothing about the website except a bad UX?

I changed strategies from generating SEO-fluff to generating "unique research" where we only post unique data, based on our own research, present in a SEO-friendly way. For example, instead of writing 500 words about what impacts pricing of a product, we now calculate the price directly and answer the query with a number.

The content is much better and I bet it's much better for SEO. But did our rank improve? Not at all. Struggling more than before. Our content is better than the competitors and yet we are performing way worse. Thus the question: is SEO fluff still necessary for SEO? Should we bulk generate a bunch of keyword rich garbage? Does that work still in 2025?

Click to expand...

Several variables are working here. For example: are the keywords having that volume? only low kD and low volume keywords are obsolete. Are these contents relatable to the niche? Are you building topical authority? It's important to build pillar contents branching out to such smaller ones. And other underlying factors. But yes I believe more in-depth contents will rank better

contentwriter98 said:

Several variables are working here. For example: are the keywords having that volume? only low kD and low volume keywords are obsolete. Are these contents relatable to the niche? Are you building topical authority? It's important to build pillar contents branching out to such smaller ones. And other underlying factors. But yes I believe more in-depth contents will rank better

Click to expand...

Yes. I used to have broad topical authority, ranging from finances and investing to savings, utility and insurance. It ranked well on long tail keywords but poorly on competitive ones.

As of this year, I removed all niches and only focused on two: insurance and mortgage. The topical authority in Insurance is strong. It was the niche that ranked the best prior, and it covers most of the topic, from high competition keywords to niche long tails. It ranks the highest on most long tails (doesn't rank at all on high competition keywords).

I fixed the focus of the start page earlier last month – from still being generic and covering 5 high-competition pillars to being very focused and only covering 2 (very well) and with most focus being on insurance (300 pages vs perhaps 30).

Today I adjusted the start page further, removing simple links to my pillar pages and replacing them with rich and prominent cards, under the header "What we offer". Here, I've written a sentence and added a bullet list covering the utility of each product, which tells the user more about what the pillars are. I used to have 16 links for 2 different verticals in menus, now I have 16 rich cards.

Example of change:
From:
Find insurance:
- Home insurance
- Pet insurance
- Life insurance
- ...
(Hidden behind a click.)

To:
Insurances we offer:
- Home insurance
Insure your home, villa or vacation house up to $X with A/B/C benefits.

• Protection around the clock
• Free D/E/F
• Additional benefit.

- ...
(Displayed prominently.)

Each card is a clickable anchor. Used to have simple links for 3 years prior. Now each pillar is covered on the start page. The idea is to show further expertise. I bet this will have an insignificant impact, but it's yet another clear improvement to add to the list. I should make this thread my diary.

Today I finished the contextual cards and added (actual) citations to the start page. We've gotten mentions from top brands, and I've highlighted these + linked to them from the start page. I also improved intros for some pages (might improve a few more before I sleep). I have become mentally ill and none of this matters. I want to change domains badly, but the stress from the ever growing to-do and ideas over the missing piece of the puzzle keeps me stuck. I am pretty much done now, though. The start page is pretty much finished, and aside from a few more intros, I don't know what more I can do.

I will consider copying everything to a brand new domain tomorrow and figure out if the domain is the weak link.

Honestly, I'm not even sure anymore. I've been so beaten down over the years, yeah this looks positive, but I am still way down from the earliest days of the website (when traffic value was at $25k+, it's currently at $11k) and the website had minimal real user value. This chart tells me there has been positive effect, yet my conversions aren't increasing. Fluff-work started when I made this thread and I did a lot of other stuff too, journaled in this thread, since then.

I’ve done so many positive changes to the website, I can not begin to count them. If I used to beat the competition before, now, I crush them.

Biggest changes:

• Complete redesign — much more user friendly and scannable
• Rebranding — way more focused and not generic
• Front page changes — more focused, engaging, with fresh content and signals for E-E-A-T
• E-E-A-T optimized fluff in FAQ on every page (200+) — by comparison, website used to be thin and not cover the subject completely
• Added unique keyword rich content to every page — used to have little by comparison, now have a lot
• Improved UX — used to have basic list for site’s main intent, now have serious tools offering users unique value
• Improved intros on every page — used to be two sentences, is now a few powerful, SEO + LSI optimized sentences that engage the user to action
• Removed broad verticals — made site focused on its main niche

I’ve done a lot more (written elsewhere), but these are the ones I can remember now. Aside from the 2x in traffic during April, I haven’t seen much change. I finished the fluff by late April. Not much change during May. Most recently I added a form to immediately convert users (which I hope will reduce bounce rate).

My competitors are generally losing ranks more than gaining by about 20% whereas I am gaining more than losing by about the same amount, but this can be coincidental. After all these changes, it would be weird not to marginally gain rank.

Website is genuinely much more professional, comprehensive, SEO-optimized, user friendly and focused now yet the gains are marginal.

All-time low CTR today.

So you are maintaining a personal journal here on BHW @TurboCharge?

It is interesting to follow the progress though

Nunit said:

So you are maintaining a personal journal here on BHW @TurboCharge?

It is interesting to follow the progress though

Click to expand...

Haha, I guess. I've done so many changes and made so many improvements, I'm thinking if they work (or fail), it'd be interesting to have documented the process. Chart update (since May 7, stagnant – bump on February was due to the removal of some keywords).