Shared vocabulary is not enough to prove cannibalization
Look for competing pages serving the same need before assuming that shared vocabulary is a problem. Two pages mentioning SEO can be useful together if one teaches diagnosis and the other explains delivery.
Two pages can mention the same service while answering different questions. The problem is unresolved ownership of the same search purpose: interchangeable pages, inconsistent internal links or the wrong destination repeatedly receiving relevant impressions. Diagnose the query and destination together before deleting useful material.
A worked example
A hypothetical pricing guide and service page both mention marketing intelligence. The guide explains cost drivers; the service page explains fit and delivery. They can coexist. Two guides answering the same cost question with the same examples offer a weaker reason to remain separate.
How to apply it
- Compare query-to-page observations over comparable periods, including the intended destination.
- Read the pages for distinct buyer questions and genuinely different evidence.
- Clarify purpose and links, or consolidate redundant material into the strongest appropriate destination.
What the result can establish
Record retained URLs, moved material and relevant redirects. After a change, check discovery and query alignment rather than expecting an immediate ranking increase. Fluctuating destinations alone do not establish that two pages are harming each other.
Reference: Google: Search Console performance report.
Supporting documentation
Google: Search Console performance reportGoogle: canonicalizationGoogle: SEO starter guide