About Our US-Focused Keyword Planning Standards
Mission and scope
This resource exists to provide practical, actionable guidance for keyword research and content planning specifically tailored to United States audiences. Our mission centers on helping website owners, content strategists, and digital marketing professionals build search-optimized websites that serve users effectively while maintaining high standards for accessibility, accuracy, and governance.
We focus exclusively on approaches that work for static websites, recognizing that many organizations prefer or require sites that do not depend on server-side processing or client-side JavaScript for core functionality. This constraint shapes our recommendations and ensures that the guidance we provide can be implemented without complex technical infrastructure. Static sites offer advantages in speed, security, and reliability that make them excellent choices for content-focused websites.
Our geographic focus on the United States reflects the specific considerations that US-targeted websites must address. American English conventions, US regulatory requirements, and the cultural context of American search behavior all influence effective keyword research and content planning. While many principles apply broadly, we emphasize US-specific factors throughout our guidance to ensure relevance for our primary audience.
Accessibility forms a foundational commitment rather than an afterthought in our approach. We advocate for semantic HTML structure, proper heading hierarchies, descriptive link text, and other practices that make content accessible to users with disabilities. These practices also benefit search engine optimization, creating alignment between accessibility goals and SEO objectives.
Content governance receives significant attention because sustainable search success requires ongoing maintenance and quality control. Without clear processes for reviewing, updating, and retiring content, even well-optimized websites degrade over time. We provide frameworks for establishing governance practices that keep content accurate and effective.
What we do not provide
Understanding our scope requires clarity about what falls outside it. We do not provide legal advice regarding compliance with specific regulations. While we reference relevant standards and guidelines, website owners should consult qualified legal professionals for advice about their specific compliance obligations.
We do not guarantee search rankings or traffic outcomes. Search engine algorithms consider hundreds of factors, many outside any website owner's control. Our guidance represents best practices that improve the likelihood of search success, but no methodology can guarantee specific results in competitive search environments.
We do not cover paid advertising, social media marketing, or other digital marketing channels beyond organic search. While these channels can complement SEO efforts, they require different expertise and fall outside our focused scope.
Editorial and quality standards
Maintaining accurate, useful content requires systematic editorial processes. We follow established standards for content review, citation, and updates that ensure our guidance remains reliable over time. These standards reflect our commitment to serving readers with trustworthy information rather than content optimized primarily for search engine manipulation.
Our review cadence ensures that all content receives periodic evaluation for accuracy and relevance. Core guidance pages undergo comprehensive review at least annually, with more frequent reviews for topics where best practices evolve rapidly. When search engines announce significant algorithm changes or new features, we prioritize reviewing affected content to ensure our recommendations remain current.
Citation policy requires that factual claims reference authoritative sources. We prioritize official documentation from search engines, standards bodies, and government agencies over secondary sources. When citing research or statistics, we verify the original source and provide links that allow readers to examine evidence directly.
Updates are logged with dates so readers can assess content freshness. When we make substantive changes to guidance, we note the update date and, where relevant, summarize what changed. This transparency helps readers understand whether content reflects current best practices or may need verification against more recent sources.
Every recommendation should rest on evidence, serve user benefit, and be explained clearly enough that readers can evaluate it themselves. We aim to teach principles, not just prescribe tactics.
This philosophy guides our editorial decisions. We explain the reasoning behind recommendations so readers can adapt guidance to their specific contexts rather than following rules blindly. When best practices involve tradeoffs, we acknowledge them rather than presenting oversimplified advice.
Governance table
Effective content governance requires clear role definitions and accountability. The following table outlines the governance structure we recommend and follow ourselves. Adapt these roles to your organization's size and structure while maintaining the core functions each role serves.
| Role | Responsibility | Review frequency | Artifacts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content owner | Accountable for accuracy and completeness of assigned content areas | Quarterly content audits | Content inventory, update log |
| SEO reviewer | Validates keyword targeting, internal linking, and technical optimization | Monthly spot checks, quarterly comprehensive review | SEO checklist, ranking reports |
| Accessibility auditor | Ensures content meets WCAG guidelines and accessibility standards | Before publication, annual comprehensive audit | Accessibility checklist, audit reports |
| Editorial reviewer | Maintains voice, tone, and quality standards across all content | Before publication, periodic style reviews | Style guide, editorial calendar |
| Governance lead | Oversees processes, resolves conflicts, reports on content health | Monthly process review, quarterly stakeholder reporting | Governance documentation, health metrics |
Smaller organizations may combine multiple roles, but the underlying functions should still be addressed. Even a single-person operation benefits from systematically reviewing content for accuracy, optimization, accessibility, and quality on a regular schedule.
References we align with
Our standards and recommendations align with established guidance from US government agencies and international standards bodies. While this resource serves private sector websites, public sector standards often represent well-researched best practices applicable across contexts.
The US General Services Administration (GSA) provides extensive guidance on digital services, content strategy, and user experience for federal websites. Their resources on plain language, content design, and digital governance offer valuable frameworks that private sector organizations can adapt.
For accessibility standards, we align with guidance from Section508.gov, which provides resources for implementing accessibility requirements. While Section 508 compliance is legally required only for federal agencies and their contractors, the underlying WCAG standards represent best practices for all websites seeking to serve users with disabilities.
The broader concept of accessibility and its importance for web content is well documented in Wikipedia's article on accessibility, which provides context for understanding why accessible design matters and how it intersects with usability for all users.
These references inform our approach but do not constrain it. We synthesize guidance from multiple authoritative sources, apply professional judgment based on practical experience, and adapt recommendations to the specific context of static websites focused on US audiences.
Why public sector standards matter for private sites
Government standards often undergo rigorous development processes involving public comment, expert review, and iterative refinement. The resulting guidance tends to be well-documented, thoroughly reasoned, and designed for broad applicability. Private sector websites can benefit from this investment without bearing the development costs.
Additionally, aligning with recognized standards provides defensible rationale for design and content decisions. When stakeholders question why certain practices are followed, pointing to established standards from respected institutions carries more weight than citing informal blog posts or personal preferences.