A verdict state derived by comparing the URL Google actually returns for a keyword against the page the keyword is assigned to. If they differ, the page's verdict becomes cannibalised, the competing path is named in the sentence, and the action is 'decide which page owns this term, point the other one at it with an internal link and drop the overlap'.
Also called: two pages competing · wrong page ranking · keyword cannibalisation · google shows the wrong page
- 1seo_rankings.found_url is reduced to a path and compared with the assigned page's path.
- 2A mismatch on an assigned term produces the cannibalised verdict and names the path Google returned.
- 3The exclusivity factor separately drops any term already pointed at another page to 0.4, so it is never recommended twice.
- 4The reasons list on the term itself reads 'Ranking #N — but Google returns /other-path, not this page'.
Stated in the factor definition: "EXCLUSIVITY — is another page already on it? Two pages chasing one term is how you lose both." Cannibalisation is invisible in a normal rank report, which only shows the position, so a term can look healthy while the wrong page earns it and neither page ever reaches page one. The fix is consolidation, and the model says so explicitly rather than recommending more content.
- Rank reports show position but not which URL earned it, hiding overlap.
- The instinctive fix — write more — makes cannibalisation worse.
See it on your own jobs
Twenty minutes, your numbers, no slide deck. We’ll build one of your real buildings in front of you and send you the estimate link at the end — yours to keep either way.
or keep browsing features →