Kuroma
Content Depth & Comprehensiveness
What this check reads on your page
Visible words are what this factor counts, with script and style text stripped out, Chinese and Japanese converted to English-word equivalents so a page of unspaced characters is not read as one word, and Korean, which is written with spaces, counted by them. It then counts paragraphs, bulleted and numbered lists, and tables, and looks at whether the page's images carry alt text. The word count follows a curve that flattens near two thousand words, so the first few hundred are worth far more than the last few hundred, and a page under a thousand words is flagged as thin.
Our verdict on the evidence
Evidence-backed Deep, comprehensive pages are far more likely to be cited than shallow ones, and missing information is a leading diagnosed cause of zero-citation failures. Coverage of the topic matters, not raw length.
Cross-engine citation-driver study, deep vs shallow content and freshness gatekeeping (arXiv 2605.25517) · Zero-citation failure taxonomy: contextual gap, intent divergence, information scarcity (arXiv 2603.09296) · Google Search Central guidance on AI features (no special schema needed, no ideal page length)
A page that covers its subject gives an engine more distinct facts to match a question against, and missing information is one of the leading diagnosed causes of a page going uncited. The check cannot judge how well a topic is covered, so it grades the proxies it can count.
What it is worth
26% of On-Page Content, which is 6.5 points of the overall 100.
How audited pages score on it
Based on 30,738 audited pages.
The median page scores 70, and the middle half of pages score between 59 and 81.
- Good (75 to 100)12,222 (40%)
- Moderate (50 to 74)14,150 (46%)
- Needs work (25 to 49)2,664 (9%)
- Critical (0 to 24)1,702 (6%)
14% of audited pages score below 50 on it.
Where it fails most and least
Industries that fail it most
- Gaming: 31% of 817 audited pages fail it
- Streaming / Video: 24% of 756 audited pages fail it
- Wealth Management / Investment: 18% of 214 audited pages fail it
- Marketplace: 18% of 211 audited pages fail it
- Restaurant Tech: 17% of 481 audited pages fail it
Industries that fail it least
- MarTech / Marketing Platform: 5% of 201 audited pages fail it
- Digital Health / Health Tech: 6% of 128 audited pages fail it
- Enterprise Software / ERP: 7% of 114 audited pages fail it
- Banking / Neo-banking: 7% of 363 audited pages fail it
- Passenger Transport / Transit: 8% of 138 audited pages fail it
How to fix it
- Cover the questions a reader would ask next, beyond the headline topic; a page under a thousand words is flagged as thin, and the curve keeps paying until about two thousand.
- Break long runs of prose into paragraphs; the check counts up to fifteen and credits each one.
- Add at least one table for anything comparable (plans, specifications, prices) and a couple of lists for steps or options.
- Give every image an alt attribute that describes what it shows, so it counts as media with context rather than a gap.
What has changed in this factor
No version names this factor in its per-factor record.