A lot of writers and business owners now judge an article by one number: the content score. The tool says 54, so the draft is "not ready." Someone adds a few terms, pushes the word count up, and the score turns green at 82. Everyone feels better. The article goes live.
But here is the question I keep getting from clients: "Do these scores actually matter to Google?" The short answer is that Google doesn't see your content score at all. It is a tool's guess about how similar your page is to pages that already rank. That can be useful. It can also send you in the wrong direction.
In this guide, let me explain how these tools work, what they get right, where they mislead, and a simple workflow I suggest for using them without letting them write your article for you. I will stay tool-neutral, because the logic is much the same across the popular ones.
How content score tools build their number
Most content optimization tools follow the same basic recipe:
- You enter a target keyword.
- The tool fetches the pages that rank for it, often the top 10 to 30.
- It extracts the words and phrases those pages use, along with their length, headings and images.
- It works out which terms show up often across those pages, and how many times.
- It compares your draft against that pattern and gives you a score, often from 0 to 100, plus a list of terms to add.
Some tools use a method called TF-IDF, short for "term frequency, inverse document frequency." In plain words, it finds words that appear a lot on the ranking pages but are not common everywhere on the web. Others use language models to pull out entities, which are named things like brands, places or concepts. Many label their suggestions "NLP terms" or, less accurately, "LSI keywords."
As a real-world example, Surfer's help article on what Content Score is (accessed October 2026) says its score compares your draft with the top 20 pages ranking for your query. It lists inputs such as main and partial keywords, NLP terms, headings, content length, image alt text and more, and it now splits the score into an SEO score and an AI search score. It doesn't publish the formula or the weights. The article also says its algorithm, unlike older metrics that overemphasize structure,
“places greater weight on the natural use of relevant, prominent terms to improve your rankings”
— Surfer, What is Content Score?
Here is a general summary of the inputs these tools tend to use. Not every tool uses all of them.
| Input | What the tool measures | How useful it is, in my view |
|---|---|---|
| Term coverage | Whether you mention terms that top pages use | Useful for spotting missing subtopics |
| Term frequency | How many times you use each term vs a target range | Weak. Encourages forced repetition. |
| Word count | Your length vs the average of top pages | Weak. Averages hide very different page types. |
| Headings | Number of headings and terms in them | Somewhat useful as a structure check |
| Images | Number of images and their alt text | A rough reminder, not a quality signal |
| Keyword placement | Keyword in title, H1, first paragraph | Useful basics, quickly done |
What a high content score really tells you
Let me be fair. These tools do get some things right, and I don't tell people to cancel them.
They are good at catching obvious gaps. If every top page for "how to file a home insurance claim" mentions "adjuster," "deductible" and "photos of damage," and your draft mentions none of them, you have probably missed a part of the topic. The tool tells you that in seconds.
They make relevance visible. Ahrefs' piece on keyword relevance makes the point that Google tends to rank similar pages for a query, so matching what already ranks is a sensible starting point. A content tool is essentially an automated way of looking at that shared pattern.
They help with briefs. For an agency or a team of freelance writers, a term list is a quick way to tell a writer, "These ideas need to be in here." That is especially useful when the writer doesn't know the topic well.
So a high score tells you one thing with reasonable confidence: your draft talks about the same things as the pages that rank. It doesn't tell you whether your draft is accurate, useful, original, well-written or trustworthy. Those are the things Google's systems are built to reward.
Where content scores mislead writers
Here are six problems that come up when teams lean too hard on a score.
1. They reward sameness
A score measures similarity to what already ranks. That means the most "optimized" draft is the one that looks most like everyone else. But Google's helpful content guidance asks whether you are "mainly summarizing what others have to say without adding much value." A score can't reward something new, because new things are, by definition, not in the top 20 pages yet.
2. They count words, not meaning
Most tools check whether a term appears, not whether you explained it well. One shallow sentence that mentions "deductible" scores the same as a clear paragraph explaining how deductibles work. Writers learn quickly that the fastest way to raise a score is to sprinkle terms, not to teach.
3. They mix up page types
If the top results include a 6,000-word guide, a 400-word product page and a forum thread, the "average" word count is meaningless. You end up with a target that fits none of them.
4. They pick up junk terms
Ranking pages contain navigation, footers, cookie notices, author bios and comment sections. Surfer's own help page notes that its Audit feature scans everything inside the page body, including navigation, footer and comments, which is why its scores can differ between features. If a tool doesn't filter that well, you get suggestions like "newsletter," "privacy" or a competitor's brand name.
5. They push repetition
Frequency targets ("use 'home insurance claim' 9 to 14 times") lead straight to awkward, repetitive writing. Google's SEO Starter Guide is clear about this:
“Excessively repeating the same words over and over (even in variations) is tiring for users”
— Google Search Central, SEO Starter Guide
The same guide adds that keyword stuffing is against Google's spam policies. I go deeper on this in my guide to keyword density and keyword stuffing.
6. They can't see what matters most
A tool can't tell whether your photos are original, whether your advice is correct, or whether you have real experience with the topic. It can't even tell whether your images are visible to Google, which depends on how they are coded. I explain that in my guide to what Google can index in SVGs, icons and background images.
Two drafts, two scores: a worked example
Let me show you how this plays out with a hypothetical example. A roofing company writes a guide called "How to file a roof damage insurance claim."
| Draft A | Draft B | |
|---|---|---|
| Content score | 88 | 61 |
| Word count | 2,900 | 1,750 |
| Suggested terms used | 47 of 50 | 29 of 50 |
| "roof insurance claim" used | 14 times | 4 times |
| Step-by-step process | Generic, 5 steps | Specific, 8 steps with what to photograph |
| Original content | None | A checklist the roofer gives customers, a sample timeline, common reasons claims get denied |
| Missing terms | 3 (all minor) | 21, including "hail," "depreciation" and "adjuster" |
Which one would you rather read if your roof was damaged last night? Draft B, clearly. It is shorter, more specific and has real-world value. But it scores lower.
Now here is the important part. Draft B's missing terms are not all junk. "Depreciation" and "adjuster" are real subtopics a homeowner needs to understand. So the right move is not to ignore the tool. It is to add two short, useful sections to Draft B, maybe pushing it to 2,100 words and a score of around 70, and stop there. Draft B then has both: the coverage of Draft A and the value Draft A never had.
That is the balance I suggest: use the score to find gaps, then judge each gap with your own head. For a full method to find and sort subtopics, see my guide to subtopic coverage without padding.
Why chasing the score works against your readers
There is a deeper issue here. When a team treats the score as the target, writing changes. People start asking "what will raise the number?" instead of "what does the reader need?"
Ahrefs' article on LSI keywords quotes an older line from Google that sums it up nicely:
“Just think: when you search for 'dogs', you probably don't want a page with the word 'dogs' on it hundreds of times.”
— Google, as quoted by Ahrefs in LSI Keywords: What are They and Do They Matter?
The same Ahrefs article explains that Google understands synonyms and related ideas, and that "LSI keywords" are a misleading label for related terms. Related terms help Google understand what a page is about. Repeating them to hit a range doesn't. I cover the myth in more detail in my post on LSI keywords, myth vs reality.
Google's helpful content guide lists warning signs of search engine-first content. Two of them fit score-chasing almost exactly: writing to a particular word count because you think Google prefers it, and creating content mainly to attract visits from search engines. If the only reason a paragraph exists is that it moved the score from 74 to 79, that is a warning sign.
And in Ahrefs' article on over-optimization, there is a simple line I agree with: "You don't need to cram keywords into every inch of your article."
Keep, check or ignore: sorting term suggestions
So how do you use the term list sensibly? I sort every suggestion into one of three groups.
| Group | What it looks like | Example for "roof insurance claim" | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keep | A real concept or subtopic the reader needs | adjuster, deductible, depreciation, hail damage | Cover it properly, often with its own short section |
| Check | Might be useful, depending on your audience or angle | replacement cost, policy limits, storm chasers | Include if it helps your reader; skip if not |
| Ignore | Navigation junk, competitor brands, unrelated words, near-duplicates of your keyword | "get a free quote," a rival's company name, "roof claim insurance roofing" | Leave it out |
A few rules I follow:
- Use a term once, well, rather than five times badly. Ignore frequency targets unless you are far below them for a core concept.
- If a term needs a whole new section to make sense, ask whether that section serves the reader. If it doesn't, skip the term.
- Never add a competitor's brand name just because it appears on their pages.
- Synonyms count. If the tool wants "insurer" and you wrote "insurance company," you are fine.
- Watch out for location terms on local pages. Tools often suggest a long list of nearby towns. That is how pages end up with the problem I describe in my guide to city-name stuffing on local pages.
A score-aware writing workflow that keeps readers first
Here is the workflow I suggest. It uses the tool, but at the right moment.
- Study the search results yourself first. Look at the top pages, People Also Ask and the type of page that ranks. Decide the intent before you open any tool.
- Outline from reader questions. Write the headings as questions the reader has, in the order they would ask them.
- Add your information gain. Note at least one thing you can offer that competitors don't: data, a process, a checklist, a real example.
- Write the draft without looking at the score. This is the most important step. It keeps your voice natural.
- Now run the tool. Look only at the missing-term list, not the number.
- Sort the missing terms into keep, check and ignore.
- Fill real gaps with useful sentences or short sections. Don't touch frequency.
- Read the draft out loud. Anything that sounds forced, cut it.
- Glance at the score last. If it lands in a reasonable range for that topic, fine. If it is very low, recheck for a missed subtopic. If it is very high, check for stuffing.
- Publish, then measure what matters: impressions, rankings and clicks in Search Console over the following weeks.
This is close to how we approach writing in general, which I cover in my guide to SEO content writing. If you are new to writing for search, our beginner lesson on how to write an SEO-friendly article covers the basics first.
One more practical tip. If you use these tools to brief writers, don't give them a target score. Give them the "keep" terms as a list of ideas to cover. Writers given a score to hit write for the score. Writers given ideas to explain write for the reader.
When to ignore the content score completely
There are times when I don't look at the score at all. Here is a quick decision guide:
| Situation | Why the score is unreliable | What to use instead |
|---|---|---|
| Service pages and local landing pages | Top results mix directories, ads and very different page types | Real customer questions, proof and clear calls to action |
| Brand-new topics or news | Few ranking pages to compare with | Original reporting and expertise |
| Product pages | Top results are often marketplaces with huge templated text | Specs, photos, reviews and buyer questions |
| Original research or opinion pieces | The value is the new data, not the shared terms | Clear methods and findings |
| Results dominated by forums or video | Text term analysis misses what makes those results win | Format and intent analysis |
| Pages already ranking well | "Optimizing" can damage what already works | Search Console data on the page's actual queries |
That last row is important. It is tempting to take a page sitting at position 3 and rewrite it to raise its score from, say, 65 to 90. There is no rule that a higher score means a higher ranking, and the change can remove the exact things that made the page rank. If a page is doing well, improve it carefully, with real updates, not term stuffing.
Questions about content optimization scores
Does Google use content scores to rank pages?
No. A content score is made by a third-party tool. Google never sees it. At best, it is a rough guess at how similar your page is to pages Google already ranks.
What is a good content score?
There is no universal number. Even Surfer's help page, which calls 60 a good benchmark for its SEO score, notes this varies by query. Use the score as a sanity check, not a target.
Are "NLP keywords" and "LSI keywords" the same thing?
They are both labels tools use for related terms. LSI is an old technique that Google almost certainly doesn't use, so the label is misleading. What matters is covering related ideas naturally.
Should I hit the recommended word count?
No. Google says content length alone doesn't matter for ranking. Write as long as the topic needs, and no longer.
Can a high content score hurt my page?
The score itself can't. But the edits people make to raise it, such as repeating keywords and adding filler, can make the page worse for readers and, in extreme cases, look like keyword stuffing.
Are content tools worth paying for?
They can save time on research and briefs, especially for teams. Just use them to find gaps, not to grade quality.
How I would use your content tool starting this week
In brief: a content score is a similarity check. Similarity is a fine place to start and a poor place to finish. Use the tool to find missing ideas, judge each one yourself, and spend the rest of your time on what no tool can measure: accuracy, clarity, real examples and something new.
If you want to try this, take one article that is stuck on page two. Write down its score, then ignore it. Sort the missing terms, fill only the real gaps, add one original element and see how it does over the next month. And if you are cleaning up older pages, check your internal links too, because a lot of tools push exact-match anchors as well. My guide on the internal anchor text audit covers that.
If you would rather have our team handle it, we write and optimize content this way through our content writing service and our on-page optimization work. You can get in touch for a free quote anytime.
Further reading on content optimization scores
- Does Bold Text Help SEO? Formatting for Skimmers
- Showing First-Hand Experience on the Page
- City-Name Stuffing on Local Pages: How Much Is Too Much?
