A lot of small site owners think publishing more topics gives them more chances to rank. That sounds logical, but Google has warned against that mindset for years. Search Central has explicitly said the false assumption that creating more pages with random, irrelevant content is a good long-term strategy is exactly the wrong approach. Google’s more recent helpful content guidance says its systems are designed to prioritize helpful, reliable information created for people, not content made mainly to attract search traffic.
That is why random publishing weakens small sites so often. A site with scattered topics usually sends weaker signals about what it truly knows, who it serves, and why readers should trust it. Google’s guidance on helpful content asks whether you have a primary purpose or focus for your site, and whether you are producing lots of content on different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results. That is basically Google telling you that random publishing is often a bad strategy.
Why topical authority matters more now
Google does not use “topical authority” as a universal ranking label for all websites, but it has publicly discussed topic authority in news and repeatedly emphasized expertise, focus, and usefulness in broader search guidance. In its explanation of news topic authority, Google says publishers with specific expertise are more likely to surface when their content is most helpful for understanding a topic or field. While that post is about news, the broader lesson is obvious: focused expertise is easier for Google to understand and easier for users to trust.
Google’s 2025 advice on succeeding in AI-powered search reinforces the same point in plainer language: focus on making unique, non-commodity content that visitors find helpful and satisfying. Random publishing usually produces the opposite — commodity content spread across too many subjects. Small sites are especially vulnerable here because they do not have brand strength to cover weak focus.
What random publishing usually looks like
Random publishing usually has patterns like these:
- one site covers SEO, crypto, recipes, health tips, and celebrity news
- articles are chosen because keywords look easy, not because the site knows the topic
- there is no clear audience the site consistently serves
- internal linking becomes messy because topics do not connect well
- content feels interchangeable with thousands of other pages
This is where site owners lie to themselves. They call it “diversifying,” but often it is just chasing traffic with no editorial spine. Google’s helpful content update specifically warned against producing lots of content on different topics hoping some of it will perform well.
A simple comparison table
| Random publishing model | Topical authority model |
|---|---|
| Covers many unrelated subjects | Focuses on a tighter niche or subject area |
| Chases keyword opportunities | Builds depth around reader needs |
| Weak audience clarity | Clear target audience |
| Harder to show expertise | Easier to show expertise and experience |
| Creates commodity content faster | Builds stronger content clusters over time |
This is the practical difference. A focused site can build connected content, clearer author credibility, and stronger user expectations. A random site often looks like it exists mainly to catch search traffic from anywhere. Google’s ranking systems guide says the helpful content system was built to show more original, helpful content written for people rather than content made primarily to gain search engine traffic, and in March 2024 it became part of Google’s core ranking systems.
How small sites should build focus instead
A smarter strategy is to choose a tighter topic area and go deeper. That means:
- publish connected articles around one main niche
- build clear internal links between related topics
- use authors who actually know the subject
- add original examples, analysis, or experience
- stop publishing random content just because a keyword tool suggested it
Google’s people-first content guidance and AI-search guidance both support this direction: helpful, unique, satisfying content beats scaled commodity publishing. Random content often fails because it lacks clear purpose and adds too little original value.
What not to assume
Do not assume that every site must stay tiny forever or never expand into adjacent topics. Expansion can work when it is logical, audience-relevant, and supported by real expertise. The problem is not growth. The problem is unfocused growth. When a small site jumps into unrelated areas with thin knowledge and thin value, it usually weakens trust rather than growing authority. That conclusion follows directly from Google’s repeated warnings against search-first publishing across many unrelated topics.
Conclusion
Publishing random articles is hurting small sites because volume is not the same thing as value. Google’s own guidance keeps pushing in the same direction: helpful, reliable, people-first content, clear site focus, and unique non-commodity value. So stop acting like every keyword opportunity deserves a page. Small sites usually win by being known for something, not by publishing everything badly.
FAQs
Does Google directly say random publishing is a bad idea?
Yes. Google’s helpful content guidance warns against producing lots of content on different topics in hopes some of it will perform well, and older Search Central guidance also warned against random, irrelevant content as a strategy.
What is topical authority in practical terms?
In practical terms, it means building depth, expertise, and usefulness around a focused subject area rather than spreading effort across unrelated topics. Google has discussed topic authority explicitly in news and repeatedly emphasizes expertise and usefulness more broadly.
Can a small site cover more than one topic?
Yes, but expansion works best when the topics are closely related, useful for the same audience, and backed by real expertise. Unrelated topic sprawl is the real problem.
Why does random publishing often fail after updates?
Because it often creates commodity content made mainly for search traffic instead of clear, useful content built around a strong site purpose. Google’s ranking systems and helpful-content guidance both push against that model.