User prefers wider topical coverage over narrow SEO concentration
User prefers wider topical coverage over narrow SEO concentration
The rule
When designing scope for a content site, the user picks wider topical coverage over narrow-but-deep SEO concentration — when the only cost is more content, not more risk.
The evidence
On 2026-06-20, the cards-site scope question:
- Recommended: "Credit cards only, India" (highest SEO concentration)
- Chosen: "All financial cards, India" (credit + debit + forex + prepaid + travel)
User chose to own "cards" as a category vs just "credit cards", accepting lower per-page rank for a wider topical net. See cards-site-scope.md.
How to apply
When the next content-site scope question comes up (e.g. "what's the scope of learn-site? health-site? food-site?"):
- Make the wider scope the Recommended option when:
- The wider scope doesn't introduce regulatory risk (legal advice, medical advice with PHI)
- The wider scope doesn't double the audience research effort (e.g. India + US is double-effort, not "more content")
- The narrower-deeper option is just a subset of the wider option
- Make the narrower scope the Recommended option when:
- Going wider crosses an audience boundary (Indian + US markets are different)
- Going wider crosses a compliance line (medical claims, financial advice that requires SEBI/SEC registration)
- The narrower option is genuinely a different product
When the rule does NOT apply
- Tools sites — already split by category by design. The split is the structure; "wider" doesn't apply.
- Geographic split — US + India is "wider" by geography but doubles audience research; that's not what this rule is about.
- Risk-bearing scope — never expand into legal/medical/financial-advice categories on autopilot just because they're "wider".
Related taste rules
- user-prefers-atomic-split.md — same session, structural split preference
- self-update-rule.md — meta-rule that generated this rule