Link rel attribute auditor: sponsored, ugc, nofollow
Audit the links in pasted HTML against Google's rel qualifiers: sponsored for paid links, ugc for user content and nofollow when neither applies.
Count words and keyword occurrences in your draft and see the density as a diagnostic number, not an optimal-percentage target that does not exist.
Runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you enter is uploaded, logged or stored.
This is a diagnostic number, not an optimization target. Google has stated it does not use keyword density as a ranking signal; see the sourced explanation below the tool.
Word count and keyword repetition are easy to measure and easy to misuse. This tool measures both, plainly, so you can confirm a draft has not accidentally repeated a term far more than a human writer would, without turning that number into a target to hit.
Search engine optimization has circulated density targets for decades, most commonly a range somewhere between one and three percent. Google has never published such a target, and its own staff have said the opposite: rankings come from evaluating what a page is about and how well it answers a query, not from counting how many times a phrase repeats. Google’s spam policies name the practice explicitly under keyword stuffing, describing it as filling a page with keywords or numbers in an attempt to manipulate rankings, often appearing in a list or group, unnaturally, or out of context. That page is a policy against manipulation, not a formula for a passing score. Chasing a density percentage optimizes for a number Google has said it does not use.
Density is still worth seeing, for a narrower reason than ranking. A draft edited in pieces can end up repeating a phrase far more than a person would naturally write it, especially after several rounds of keyword-focused revision. Seeing the raw count and percentage catches that kind of drift before publishing. Use it as a proofreading signal: if the count looks high for the length of the piece, read the passage back and see whether the repetition reads naturally or mechanically. Rewrite for the second case regardless of what percentage it produces.
Content length works the same way here. A low word count paired with a claim to cover a topic in depth is a signal to add substance, not because Google counts words either, but because thin coverage of a topic is easy to spot once it is measured plainly.
There is no official ideal density. Google has repeatedly said it does not use a keyword-density-style score and instead evaluates relevance more holistically, judging text unnaturally packed with repeated terms as keyword stuffing rather than measuring it against a percentage target.
The warning triggers on this tool's own heuristic for a phrase repeated an unnaturally high number of times in short text, clearly labeled as the tool's judgment call rather than a Google-published rule. It exists to catch accidental over-repetition, the kind Google's spam policies describe as keyword stuffing.
No. Matching uses word boundaries, so a phrase like "cat" will not match inside "category". A multi-word phrase must appear as that exact sequence of words to count as one occurrence.
Audit the links in pasted HTML against Google's rel qualifiers: sponsored for paid links, ugc for user content and nofollow when neither applies.
Preview a title and meta description as Google renders them, measured in pixels rather than characters, on desktop and mobile.
Score pasted text with the Flesch reading ease formula and estimate reading time, computed live in your browser from real, cited constants.
Compare titles or H1s across your own pages and flag near-duplicate pairs using Jaccard word-overlap similarity, entirely in your browser.