What level of content depth do AI systems prefer? Trying to find the sweet spot

Depth should match user intent, not be universal.

The depth-intent matrix:

Why “medium depth” struggles:

It’s too complex for beginners, too basic for experts. It falls into a gap.

The solution: Progressive depth

Structure content to serve multiple levels:

1. Surface answer (first paragraph)
2. Accessible explanation (main content)
3. Deeper detail (advanced sections)
4. Expert resources (links to technical content)

This lets AI cite the appropriate section for different query types.

Technical content perspective on depth.

The technical depth challenge:

We write for developers. Our audience WANTS depth. But some queries come from non-developers.

Our approach:

For each technical topic, create:

1. Overview page (accessible)

   • What it is, why it matters
   • High-level how it works
   • When to use it

2. Tutorial (intermediate)

   • Step-by-step implementation
   • Working examples
   • Common use cases

3. Reference (expert)

   • API documentation
   • Technical specifications
   • Edge cases and troubleshooting

How AI uses this:

The key:

Don’t try to make one page serve all levels. Create depth-appropriate content for each intent.

B2B perspective on depth.

B2B audiences expect depth:

But different stakeholders have different depth needs:

• Executives: Strategic, outcome-focused
• Managers: Practical, implementation-focused
• Practitioners: Technical, detail-focused

Our depth strategy:

For AI visibility:

We create separate content streams for each audience depth. AI cites appropriately for query intent.

Example topic: “Marketing automation”

• Executive: “What’s the ROI of marketing automation?”
• Manager: “How to implement marketing automation”
• Practitioner: “Marketing automation workflow configuration”

Three pieces, three depths, three citation opportunities.

Data perspective on depth and citations.

What we analyzed:

Depth scoring (1-5 scale) vs citation rate:

The insight:

Depth-intent match is everything. Deep content for basic queries performs poorly. Basic content for expert queries performs poorly.

The “universal” content at depth 3?

It underperforms for both query types. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Recommendation:

Commit to a depth level that matches specific intent. Don’t try to be everything.

Content architecture for depth.

The depth pyramid:

        /\
       /  \     Expert (deep, narrow)
      /----\
     /      \   Intermediate (moderate, applied)
    /--------\
   /          \ Beginner (accessible, broad)
  /------------\

For each major topic:

Build content at all three levels, with clear connections:

Beginner content:

• “Learn more in our intermediate guide”
• “For technical details, see our deep-dive”

Intermediate content:

• “New to this? Start with our beginner guide”
• “Ready for more? See our advanced content”

Expert content:

• Links to intermediate for context
• Assumes foundational knowledge

How this helps AI:

AI can cite the right level for the query and users can navigate to their appropriate depth.

Optimization perspective on depth.

How to determine right depth for a topic:

1. Query analysis

• What queries drive traffic to this topic?
• Are they basic, intermediate, or advanced?

2. SERP analysis

• What depth do top results provide?
• What’s missing (gap opportunity)?

3. AI response analysis

• Ask AI the target query
• What depth does AI provide?
• What level does AI seem to want?

4. User data

• What questions do users ask after reading?
• Does content satisfy or confuse?

The depth audit:

For each content piece:

• Current depth: [1-5]
• Query intent depth: [1-5]
• Match: Yes/No
• Action: Adjust depth or create new content

Mismatch resolution:

If content is too shallow: Deepen it If content is too deep: Simplify or create beginner version If neither works: Create depth-appropriate separate content

Much clearer now. Summary:

Key insights:

1. Depth should match intent - not be universal
2. “Medium depth” often fails - too shallow for experts, too deep for beginners
3. Progressive depth works - structure single content for multiple levels
4. Separate content for major depth levels - for important topics

My strategy:

For each major topic area:

1. Beginner content - Accessible, foundational
2. Intermediate content - Applied, practical
3. Expert content - Technical, detailed

For single-piece content:

Use progressive depth structure:

• Quick answer (surface)
• Main explanation (accessible)
• Advanced section (deep)
• FAQ (multiple levels)

Audit existing content:

• Score current depth
• Identify intent depth for queries
• Flag mismatches
• Either adjust depth or create appropriate alternatives

Tracking:

Use Am I Cited to see which depth levels get cited for which queries.

Thanks everyone - depth strategy clarified.