Home Science Tools: pruning 200 blog pages, organic sessions up 104%

Inflow’s case study on client HomeScienceTools.com is one of the more specific published examples of content pruning on a real, named commercial site: it names the client, states a page count, and gives percentage changes in sessions, transactions and revenue rather than vague claims of “improvement.” We read the case study page directly and report only what it states.

What Inflow removed, and why#

HomeScienceTools.com sells educational science products alongside a blog. In early August 2018, Inflow pruned roughly 200 blog pages, about 10% of the blog’s total page count. The case study says pages were targeted for having “little or no organic traffic, total pageviews, conversions, and backlinks”, the standard content-pruning criteria: pages that draw no search visits, get no reader engagement, convert nobody, and have no external links pointing at them. Inflow says it typically deindexes 5% to 20% of a store’s product and category pages during audits like this one, which places the Home Science Tools blog cut at the lower end of that range.

The reported results#

In the case study’s own words, the site saw a “104% increase in organic sessions” and a “102% increase in transactions” following the pruning. Inflow also reports a “64% increase in strategic content revenue” over the same tracking window, which ran through November 2018. The case study describes one interim wrinkle worth noting: the site’s organic keyword footprint “dropped slightly” immediately after the pages came down, before increasing substantially over the 90 days that followed. That dip-then-recovery pattern is common after a prune and is one reason agencies caution against judging a pruning project on its first two or three weeks of data.

Why this counts as evidence, and where it stops#

This is Inflow’s own account of its own client engagement, published to promote its services, not an independent audit. The percentages are relative to the site’s pre-pruning baseline rather than stated as absolute session or revenue counts, and no external analytics platform is cited to confirm them. What makes it usable evidence, rather than just another marketing claim, is the specificity: a named site, a stated page count, a stated month, and four distinct metrics reported in the same piece, including one, the keyword footprint dip, that runs against the agency’s own headline result before it recovers. A case study that only reported wins would be easier to dismiss.

Client marketing director Brandy Hansen is quoted in the piece calling the audit “timely, necessary, and strategic,” which is the kind of attributed quote that at least ties the account to a named person at the client company, rather than leaving it anonymous.