Disclaimer: This article discusses content that mentions abuse and domestic violence.
We spend a lot of time at Eleven digging through SERPs to better understand Google and users. We’re always looking for outliers — companies that do well in the wake of Google updates, which so often hit small- and mid-size companies hardest.
In this case, we unearthed a fascinating tale of success from the marketing team at the Newport Institute (not an Eleven client), an organization that supports individuals struggling with mental health and substance abuse.
Take a look at their organic traffic graph from the past 15 months:
Ahrefs estimates Newport Institute’s organic traffic increased from 111,567 to 264,128 clicks in six weeks.
But how did organic traffic increase by 120% in such a short time?
I discovered that just one blog post was responsible for this exponential growth.
On May 12, 2024, Identifying Gaslighting: Signs, Examples, and Seeking Help had an estimated organic traffic of 27,864 monthly clicks. The chart below shows that this estimate has grown to almost 220,000 clicks.
As you can see from the above, traffic was in steady decline for around a month before it exploded upward. Following a deep dive into the website, I’m pretty confident a content refresh was the reason for this spectacular growth.
The Internet Archive has this snapshot from May 12, 2024:
By May 29, the content had changed:
In this case study, I’ll cover the 6 things Newport Institute changed and how they helped the blog article regain the first position for a highly competitive keyword.
Short on time? Here are the key takeaways
- Newport Institute changed the title of the blog post to better align with search intent by including key terms like “signs” and “examples.”
- It also added a “key takeaways” section to the article, enhancing readability and the user experience.
- Newport Institute updated the introduction and added new sections to keep the content current and comprehensive.
- Additionally, it introduced new subheadings and edited existing ones for better readability and SEO value.
- Finally, Newport Institute included an FAQ section — with correct schema — to boost visibility.
1. Page title change: Aligning with search intent
Newport Institute changed the title of this blog post from “How To Tell If Someone Is Gaslighting You” to “Identifying Gaslighting: Signs, Examples, and Seeking Help.”
Why I think this works
To understand the impact of this page title change, we need to look at the SERPs (Search Engine Result Pages) for the main keyword.
The main keyword for this blog post is “gaslighting,” an extremely competitive keyword with 537,000 searches per month on Google.com.
At the start of 2024, Newport Institute ranked number one for this keyword. A gradual decline followed, and the site languished in position 12 before the content refresh.
To understand Newport Institute’s changes, we need to examine the search results for May 12, 2024.
The top result and three others start with “What Is Gaslighting?” This is a slightly different search intent to Newport Institute’s original page title, “How To Tell If Someone Is Gaslighting You.”
Two more keywords these other titles use are “examples” and “warning signs.” Therefore, it makes sense for Newport Institute to update its title to incorporate these themes. It did so in a very subtle, original way:
Instead of using the generic “What is…”, Newport Institute correctly assumed Google would know that “Identifying” means the same thing.
I also like how Newport Institute added “Seeking Help” to the end of the title. It shows the article is comprehensive and promises extra value for the reader. It also ties in with Newport Institute's target audience: people seeking treatment.
2. Addition of “Key Takeaways”: Enhancing user experience
One of the biggest changes between the updated version and the original is the addition of a “Key Takeaways” section.
This has been manually added to the content with some shading to improve the page’s visual appeal.
Why I think this works
At Eleven Writing, we add “Key Takeaways” sections to the content we create for many of our clients. We do this because it improves the reader experience by providing value upfront. Readers can scan this section and determine whether the rest of the content will answer their query.
Adding “Key Takeaways” also helps Google’s web crawlers find pertinent information quickly and add it to enhanced search results.
For Newport Institute, the impact of adding a “Key Takeaways” section can be seen in the “People Also Ask” section for the main keyword, “gaslighting.” Google has quoted and linked to Newport Institute for the answer to this question:
The content for this answer is pulled directly from the “Key Takeaways” section of the updated article.
Interestingly, none of the competing pages in the “gaslighting” SERPs include a “Key Takeaways” section.
3. Adjusting and adding content
During the content refresh, Newport Institute changed the introduction and added new content.
Here’s how the introduction looked before:
And here’s how it looks after:
Newport Institute also added a new section covering the types of gaslighting:
Why I think this works
These changes keep the content current and help Newport Institute provide a better search result for its main keyword.
The blog post was first published in 2021, when the miniseries Maid and the movie The Girl on the Train debuted on Netflix. Removing these “recent” references makes sense — as does incorporating a more current reference to the still-running series The Bachelorette and an evergreen reference to Merriam-Webster.
The section “Types of Gaslighting” provides more information on gaslighting, diving into details that Newport Institute’s competitors don’t. (None of the competing pages include a section like this!)
This is a recurring theme I saw with the changes Newport Institute implemented: The company made original changes instead of copying competitors.
A move like this is key to crafting helpful content that benefits readers and ranks well on SERPs. In fact, Google mentions these two points in its Creating Helpful, Reliable, People-First Content Guidelines:
- Does the content provide a substantial, complete, or comprehensive description of the topic?
- Does the content provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
The new “Types of Gaslighting” section ticks both of these boxes.
The effect of adding this section can be seen in the dramatic change in rankings for the keyword “types of gaslighting.” After the new content was added, the keyword increased from position 88 to position 8.
There’s also been a significant increase in keyword rankings around the definition of gaslighting from the time of the content refresh.
“Gaslighting” has a high search volume, and this blog post has significantly improved its rankings for keyword variations that attract tens of thousands of clicks.
Additionally, the blog post has started ranking for new keywords like “gaslighting examples” and “what is an example of gaslighting,” which Newport Institute wasn’t ranking for on May 12, 2024.
4. Improved structure: Enhancing readability and SEO value
Before the content refresh, Newport Institute used bold text at the beginning of each paragraph in the section titled “5 Ways to Counteract Gaslighting Abuse Symptoms.”
As part of the update, Newport Institute changed the bold text to H3 heading tags.
Why I think this works
This is an interesting change because many websites use a bold font instead of a header tag for stylistic purposes.
However, heading tags emphasize keywords more than bolded text. They help establish topical relevance by helping Google’s machine-learning algorithms understand the content more easily. Additionally, using more subheadings for longer passages makes the content easier for readers to digest.
If you look further down the search results for “gaslighting,” you’ll find a lot of pages that don’t have their heading tags in order.
For example, the Cleveland Clinic is in position 37 with its blog post “What Is Gaslighting? Signs and How To Respond.” This article is over 1,000 words, but the heading tags lack detail compared with Newport Institute’s article.
I frequently encounter this issue when conducting SEO audits for websites of all sizes. I recommend exploring Google’s developer documentation style guide for tips on formatting your headings and subheadings so they’re clear and descriptive.
5. Edited subheadings: Better context and flow
Newport Institute also made two noteworthy changes to subheadings during the content refresh:
- It took the copy in the section that used to begin with the subheading, “What Is Gaslighting Abuse at Work and in Society?” and separated it into two new sections: “What Is Gaslighting Abuse at Work?” and “Racial and Gender-Related Gaslighting.”
- “10 Signs of Gaslighting in a Relationship” became “10 Examples of Gaslighting.” The copy remained the same.
Why I think this works
Change 1
Splitting “What Is Gaslighting Abuse at Work and in Society?” into “What Is Gaslighting Abuse at Work?” and “Racial and Gender-Related Gaslighting” helps Google better determine the page’s context. “Gaslighting at work” and “racial gaslighting” are different topics with different Google entities.
Additionally, separate, better-focused headings can show Google that Newport Institute is an authoritative source on multiple aspects of gaslighting. Authority is a key component of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trustworthiness), which Google considers the building blocks of valuable content.
Moreover, this change improves readability and the user experience. Readers often scan blog articles; shorter, more focused sections can help them more quickly find the information they’re interested in.
Change 2
As discussed earlier, Newport Institute changed the title of this blog article from “How To Tell If Someone Is Gaslighting You” to “Identifying Gaslighting: Signs, Examples, and Seeking Help.”
This change was likely made to better match the change in search intent. At the time of the content refresh, the top result in Google was “What is gaslighting? Examples and how to respond.”
The keyword “examples” didn’t appear within the blog post before the content refresh. This was addressed by adjusting “10 Signs of Gaslighting in a Relationship” to “10 Examples of Gaslighting.”
Doing so helped Newport Institute snag the featured snippet for the keyword “what is an example of gaslighting?”
Newport Institute also scored a featured answer in the “People Also Ask” section for this keyword:
6. FAQ section: Boosting visibility and user engagement
Finally, Newport Institute added a “Frequently Asked Questions” section featuring five questions and answers in a user-friendly accordion display.
Why I think this works
Google uses its algorithm to populate the “People Also Ask” snippets with popular questions users have searched for related to the main keyword. I always advise googling your main keyword and checking if your page covers the visible questions to ensure it’s well-aligned with search intent.
Care is needed here, though, as a dedicated FAQ section might not always be necessary. The topic might be relatively straightforward, and an extra section may be redundant. However, I always say, “Let the SERPs guide you,” so it’s worth checking if the top search results include this section.
Before Newport Institute’s content refresh, Medical News Today’s article “Examples and signs of gaslighting and how to respond” was the top result for the keyword “gaslighting” and included an FAQ section. However, I believe Newport Institute’s recently published FAQ section is better for three reasons:
1. It includes two more questions
Medical News Today’s FAQ section has just three questions. This might be enough for some topics, but usually, I see three to five in the top-ranking search results.
When choosing questions for your FAQ section, pick ones your content hasn’t already answered. For example, Newport Institute’s article provides examples of gaslighting in its main body, so its FAQ section can cover other common questions regarding gaslighting.
2. It concisely answers the question
In my experience, answers of around two to three sentences work well in FAQ sections. This is about the length of these snippets in the SERPs, and it helps the reader get to the answer quickly.
Newport Institute’s FAQs are nice and concise, while the FAQs from Medical News Today are around four to six sentences long.
Another tactic I find works well is having the first sentence of each answer paraphrase the question, which Newport Institute does.
This is believed to help Google’s natural language processing (NLP) algorithm, BERT, more easily discern the meaning of each answer.
While Newport Institute’s answers mirror the phrasing of their questions, Medical News Today’s answers take a couple of sentences to refer back to each question.
3. FAQ schema is set up correctly
Correctly implementing FAQ schema helps maximize visibility, improve user experience, and stay competitive in search engine results. These days, schema is relatively easy to set up with Yoast Pro or AI tools like ChatGPT.
However, the mistake I often see during SEO audits is that people forget to validate their FAQ schema. That’s why I always recommend running published pages through Google’s Rich Results Test to check there aren’t any issues.
As shown below, Newport Institute has properly implemented FAQ schema for its blog article on gaslighting.
On the other hand, Newport Institute’s competitor in the search results, Medical News Today, hasn’t:
What Newport Institute Was Already Doing Well
With this case study, I don’t want to suggest that the above changes are the sole reason this blog page is pulling in 220k visitors a month. The page previously ranked number one for the competitive keyword “gaslighting” before Google shook up the search results. This indicates Newport Institute was already doing things that Google liked.
Here are four things I think the company was doing well:
Optimizing for featured snippets
Nabbing the featured snippet for a keyword with 537,000 monthly searches is a big deal.
This snippet is from the “What is Gaslighting Abuse?” section of Newport Institute’s blog post — it’s the same copy as before the content refresh.
But this is just one of 249 featured snippets that this blog post ranks for, according to Ahrefs.
One reason Newport Institute is able to grab so many featured snippets is that the page is well-structured, with descriptive heading tags in logical order.
Its body copy is also clear and to the point; in the “What is Gaslighting Abuse?” section, the copy answers the question immediately — explaining gaslighting in two brief sentences.
Implementing article schema is another factor that could have helped Newport Institute rank for all these snippets. Note that the implemented schema includes the rel=publisher tag.
Adding this schema enhances credibility and signals to Google that a page is a worthy candidate for featured snippets. In the case of Newport Institute, it’s an extra level of detail that competitors like Psychology Today and The National Domestic Violence Hotline aren’t doing.
- Does it answer the user’s query as effectively as the current snippet?
- Is it well-structured?Do you use descriptive headings with H2, H3, etc., tags in a logical hierarchical order?
- Does it follow the same format as the current featured snippet? Google often favors short paragraphs, bullet points, quotes, or tables for featured snippets. Look at the format used by the article with the featured snippet and mirror it in your post.
- Does it have the right keywords and a title with an appropriate tone? Use a keyword research tool to search for keywords related to your main one. Also, consider the tone of your post. Previously, articles with a more negative titles such as “Why Bear Traps Don’t Work,” ranked higher on Google. Now, Google prefers titles with a positive tone.
- Is article schema set up correctly? Check if your page has article schema implemented and use the Rich Results Test to see if it’s set up properly.
Using on-page elements
A consistent feature of both the original and updated versions of Newport Institute’s blog post on gaslighting is the inclusion of visually appealing on-page elements.
For example, Newport Institute highlights facts and quotes with different shaded boxes.
It also uses different colored bullet points and numbered tips to help keep the reader engaged.
Avoiding excessive, intrusive ads
One theory for sites falling in rankings after Google’s recent algorithm updates is that they had too many ads.
Given that Google generates most of its revenue from advertisements, it seems unlikely that ads themselves are the problem. Instead, the issue might be these ads’ negative impact on the reader’s experience.
Some of the competitors Newport Institute has overtaken in the search rankings have many ads. One example is “Examples and signs of gaslighting and how to respond” on Medical News Today. This page has ads in the header, the content, and the sidebar, distracting from the actual body copy.
In comparison, both versions of Newport Institute’s gaslighting article are free of external ads. Both include a sign-up form, but this isn’t intrusive and is embedded in the content.
That said, the Internet Archive shows Newport Institute used to have the sign-up form as a pop-up window that appeared only seconds after opening any blog post. This stopped showing shortly before the content refresh. I can only guess that Newport Institute tested this and felt the embedded contact form works better.
Maintaining a strong backlink profile
Lastly, it would be remiss of me to discuss a website’s search rankings without discussing backlinks. At the outset of this article, I shared an image from Ahrefs that showed the target keyword for Newport Institute’s gaslighting article was “super hard.”
Ahrefs estimates a piece of content would need more than 329 referring domains to rank for this keyword. Newport Institute’s blog on gaslighting exceeds this amount and has a historically strong backlink profile.
USA Today — which has a Domain Rating (DR) of 92 — cites and links to Newport Institute in its blog article on gaslighting.
This looks to have been syndicated and brought in more links from The Courier-Journal (DR 81), Democrat & Chronicle (DR 79), Naples Daily News (DR 78), and many others.
Newport Institute’s backlink profile strengthens daily as other writers source links from the pages in the top positions.
If we look at the top 10 results, we see that although Newport Institute’s page doesn’t have the most referring domains, it has more than the average, as suggested by Ahrefs.
The one notable exception is Wikipedia, which has a lot of overall domain authority.
In other words, unless you’re Wikipedia, the chances of ranking for this competitive keyword without the foundation of a few hundred referring domains is very unlikely.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that every website leverages the “power” of these backlinks to its full potential — and this is where great content makes a difference!
Conclusion
This case study shows that it’s possible to quickly reverse declining search traffic by performing a content refresh. I’m really impressed not only with the results but also by how Newport Institute went about the refresh.
It seems that after Newport Institute realized the search intent had changed, it made changes that weren’t just blindly copying what its competitors were doing. There are clear signs that Newport Institute has tried to provide the best possible answer for the “gaslighting” search query. It added original content that its competitors haven’t and ensured its on-page SEO was on point.
By focusing on user experience and addressing search intent, Newport Institute successfully revitalized its organic traffic.
Receive insider tips straight to your inbox.
Receive insider tips straight to your inbox.
Would you like to speak to one of our experts?
Create custom email campaigns, measure performance, and turn insights into results with Mailchimp’s email marketing tools.
