Wide but shallow
- Symptom
- Dozens of definitions, no implementation depth.
- Check
- Sample five pages: do they answer “how”, constraints, and next action?
- Fix
- Merge thin intents and add operator evidence before adding another keyword.
FREE TOOL · LOCAL-FIRST
Your topic cluster.
Mapped without theatre.
Drop in a crawl export. Get a transparent audit of coverage, intent, depth, duplication, and internal structure — with the next 10 actions ranked.
Run your audit → €0
No account
LOCALNo upload
5 SIGNALSNo magic score
01 · INPUT
Audit one topic cluster.
A
Pages export
No file selectedScreaming Frog/Sitebulb CSV recommended. Sitemap XML, index.json, or a URL list also works with lower confidence.
B
Internal links export
OptionalOptional Source/Destination CSV. This replaces structural estimates with your real link graph.
Paste data instead
Files stay in your browser. Nothing is uploaded or stored.
THE MODEL
A diagnostic.
Not a Google metric.
Google does not expose a topical authority score. This audit refuses to invent one. The headline score is a documented combination of five observable inputs: topic coverage, intent breadth, internal structure, content depth, and basic page quality.
Confidence changes with the input. A sitemap gives a directional URL audit. A crawl export adds metadata, depth, and word counts. A separate link export makes the graph analysis real.
Read the topical authority framework →DIAGNOSE BEFORE YOU PUBLISH
Find the failed layer.
Then prescribe the fix.
Low visibility can come from shallow coverage, cannibalization, weak proof, missing spokes, template sludge, or stale evidence. More content is the wrong treatment for most of those states.
Cannibalized cluster
- Symptom
- Two or more URLs compete for the same result set.
- Check
- Compare ranking URLs and SERP overlap for each keyword group.
- Fix
- Choose one owner URL, merge useful sections, and redirect or retarget the rest.
Strong graph, weak proof
- Symptom
- The links are clean but every claim is curated from competitors.
- Check
- Count firsthand examples, datasets, screenshots, methods, and named sources.
- Fix
- Add evidence density: observations a competing summary cannot reproduce.
Hub without spokes
- Symptom
- A polished pillar points to a thin or unfinished library.
- Check
- List every promise in the pillar and the page that resolves it deeply.
- Fix
- Build the missing commercial and implementation spokes in pipeline order.
Programmatic sludge
- Symptom
- Template coverage expands faster than information gain.
- Check
- Diff ten pages after removing titles, locations, and product names.
- Fix
- Stop publishing until each page has unique inputs, outcomes, or constraints.
Stale authority
- Symptom
- The cluster still ranks, but facts and examples have expired.
- Check
- Flag changed products, laws, prices, SERP features, and broken citations.
- Fix
- Refresh the decaying evidence first; do not rewrite stable definitions for theatre.
Which authority are you trying to improve?
Choose the observable problem. The output tells you which metric to inspect and what to fix first.
LEARN THE SYSTEM
The score finds the gap.
These guides fix it.
An audit is useful only when every signal points to a concrete operating decision. Start with the result your crawl exposed.
01 · COVERAGE GAPS
Build the missing map.
Turn uncovered entities and intent classes into a focused publishing sequence.
Topical map in 90 minutes → 02 · HUB CANDIDATEChoose the real pillar.
Design the hub-and-spoke structure around architecture, not article length.
Pillar page architecture → 03 · STRUCTURAL DEBTRepair the link graph.
Route relevance and authority through deliberate contextual connections.
Internal linking strategy → 04 · WEAK PAGESReconnect the leaks.
Decide which isolated pages to fix, merge, or remove from the system.
Orphan-page playbook →QUESTIONS
Does the audit upload my crawl data?
No. CSV, XML, JSON, and URL data are parsed locally in your browser. The files are not sent to nikoalho.fi or another service.
Which crawl export works best?
A Screaming Frog or Sitebulb pages CSV with URL, title, meta description, H1, word count, crawl depth, and inlinks gives a strong baseline. Add a Source/Destination internal-links CSV for the highest-confidence graph analysis.
Is the score a Google metric?
No. Google does not publish a topical authority score. This tool is a transparent diagnostic model for coverage, intent breadth, depth, page quality, and internal structure.
Can I use only a sitemap?
Yes, but the result has low confidence because a sitemap exposes URLs without page titles, word counts, or the internal link graph.