Topical Map Generator

Enter a subject and this returns the pillars it divides into and the supporting articles beneath each one, with a target keyword and search intent for every page. It is the plan you would spend a day building in a spreadsheet.

What comes back

Four to seven pillars. The broad areas the subject divides into, in the order to build them.
A keyword per pillar. What the hub page for that pillar targets.
Four to eight articles under each pillar. One specific question each, with the phrase a searcher types.
The intent behind every keyword. Informational, commercial, transactional, or navigational.

Enter the subject in words rather than a URL or a keyword list, for example "email marketing automation". A map takes about twenty seconds to build and exports to CSV when it lands.

Naming the audience changes the map

The audience field is optional and it is the field worth filling in. "Email marketing automation" for an agency produces a map about client reporting, multi-account workflows, and retainer scope. The same subject for a store owner produces one about abandoned carts, post-purchase flows, and integration with a storefront. The keyword lists barely overlap.

The map is a starting structure rather than a finished plan. Check it against what already ranks before committing: if the pages ranking for a pillar keyword are all doing something the map does not anticipate, the map is wrong and the SERP is right. The keyword density checker is a quick way to see what a ranking page is built around.

Once the structure holds, each article needs a brief. The content brief generator takes any keyword from the map and returns the outline and entities for it, and the keyword clustering tool will fold an existing keyword list into the same structure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a topical map?

The full set of pages a site needs to cover a subject well enough that search engines treat it as an authority on that subject. It is organized as pillars, which are the broad areas the subject divides into, and supporting articles beneath each pillar answering one specific question each.

Does topical authority actually affect rankings?

Google does not publish a "topical authority" score, and no one outside Google can tell you its weight. What is observable is that sites covering a subject thoroughly tend to rank for its harder queries more easily than sites with one article on it, and that a new article on a well-covered subject often ranks faster than the same article on a site with no surrounding coverage.

How many articles does a map need?

This produces four to seven pillars with four to eight articles each, so between 16 and 56 pages. That is a realistic first pass at a subject rather than an exhaustive one. Publish the pillars and their strongest supporting articles first, then extend the map where the early articles show traction.

What should I enter as the topic?

The subject the pages should cover, written the way you would describe it out loud: "email marketing automation", "indoor plant care", "commercial roof repair". A URL, a keyword list, or a few stray keystrokes are not subjects, and the tool says so rather than running. That matters here more than on the other tools, because a language model asked to map a subject it cannot read does not report the problem. It picks a subject of its own and maps that, and the result looks exactly like a real map.

Should I publish in the order shown?

Broadly, yes. The pillars are ordered so the foundational areas come first, and a supporting article tends to do better once the pillar it sits under exists to link it. In practice most people publish the first pillar and its articles, then reassess, which is a reasonable way to work.

What is the difference between a pillar and a supporting article?

A pillar page covers a broad area and links out to the specific articles beneath it. A supporting article answers one question completely and links back up. The test for whether something is in the right place: if an article title could plausibly be a pillar, it is too broad to be a supporting article.