Pillar vs Cluster Content: How to Model It in Your CMS (and Scale SEO)

Overview

Pillar and cluster sounds like an SEO concept. But if you want it to work consistently, it’s actually a content modeling problem.

Most teams understand the theory:

• write a big guide (pillar)

• write supporting articles (clusters)

• link them together

And then the CMS reality breaks it:

• posts are not connected

• linking is manual and inconsistent

• no one knows which pillar a post belongs to

• the blog becomes a timeline instead of a system

The solution is simple: model the relationship inside your CMS, the same way you model any other structured data.

This article shows you exactly how to do that with a minimal schema:

• a type field (pillar | cluster)

• a pillar_ref field (reference to the parent pillar)

Once you do that, you can generate:

• consistent internal linking

• pillar hub sections (Related cluster articles)

• content audits and dashboards

• sitemap rules and publishing workflows

Pillar vs Cluster (practical definitions)

Pillar content

A pillar is the authoritative page for a topic. It should:

• cover the topic end-to-end

• define terms

• explain frameworks

• include subtopics that cluster articles expand

• act as the hub for internal links

Examples:

• CMS-driven websites: collections, dynamic routes, and content modeling

• The React + Next.js Website Builder for Production-Grade Sites

• Multi-site publishing architecture: subdomains, custom domains, and tenants

Cluster content

A cluster article targets a specific subtopic or search intent that supports the pillar. It should:

• go deep on one narrow problem

• rank for a long-tail keyword

• link back to the pillar

• link laterally to related clusters (when relevant)

Examples:

• How to design CMS collections: blog, updates, pages, and templates

• How to generate sitemaps for multi-tenant websites

• How to model dynamic routes with CMS content

A short mental model:

• Pillar = the main guide

• Cluster = one exact problem inside the guide

Why you must model this in the CMS

If you don’t model relationships, you rely on humans to maintain them. Humans fail at consistency because:

• content is written by different people at different times

• older content gets forgotten

• internal links drift

• no one has a global view of what belongs where

Modeling pillar/cluster in your CMS solves this by making structure:

• explicit

• queryable

• enforceable

• automatable

Which means:

• better internal linking

• better crawl paths

• clearer topical relevance

• easier scaling

The minimal CMS schema (what you already have)

You do not need a new collection for pillars. Use the same Blog collection and add two fields:

1) type (Option)

Allowed values:

• pillar

• cluster

2) pillar_ref (Reference)

Rules:

• only required when type = cluster

• must point to a blog post where type = pillar

• empty when type = pillar

That’s it. This is minimal, stable, and scalable.

How this changes your website behavior

Once the CMS has these fields, your frontend can do a lot automatically.

A) Auto “Related articles” on pillars

On a pillar page, query:

• all blog posts where pillar_ref = this pillar

Then display them as:

• a structured list

• grouped by subtopic (optional)

• ordered by priority (optional)

This makes the pillar a true hub.

B) Auto “Part of a guide” on clusters

On a cluster page, fetch:

• the referenced pillar (pillar_ref)

Then render:

• a banner (Part of: [Pillar Title])

• a CTA link back to the hub

• a sidebar with other cluster articles in the same pillar

This strengthens topical structure for both users and crawlers.

C) Content audit dashboards

Because pillar relationships are modeled, you can easily build internal tools like:

• Pillars with fewer than 6 clusters

• Clusters without a pillar

• Clusters that are not internally linked

• Pillars that haven’t been updated in 6 months

This is where content becomes an operational system, not just marketing.

How to model the linking rules (recommended)

The CMS model gives you the structure. Now you enforce linking rules in content.

For every pillar

Include:

• a TOC (table of contents)

• sections that match cluster topics

• a visible Related cluster articles section (auto-generated)

Recommended internal linking:

• pillar → every cluster (at least once)

• pillar → key product pages (where relevant)

For every cluster

Include:

• one early link back to the pillar (top 10–15% of article)

• one late link back to the pillar (near conclusion)

• optional link to 1-2 related clusters

Recommended internal linking:

• cluster → pillar (always)

• cluster → 1-2 sibling clusters (optional)

• cluster → relevant template/product page (when it’s truly helpful)

This is not about stuffing links. It’s about building a predictable crawl graph.

What “topic authority” means in real terms

Search engines do not reward pillars as a concept. They reward signals that pillars/clusters tend to produce:

• consistent internal linking

• depth + breadth of coverage

• repeated semantic associations

• a clean site architecture

• strong user journeys (time on site, next clicks)

Pillar/cluster works because it produces structured relevance. Modeling it in the CMS ensures those signals stay consistent at scale.

Common mistakes (and the fixes)

Mistake 1: creating a “Pillars” collection

This usually adds complexity without benefit. Fix:

• keep one Blog collection

• use a type field

Mistake 2: clusters linking to the pillar but pillars not linking back

That creates weak hubs. Fix:

• auto-generate cluster lists on pillar pages

Mistake 3: one pillar that tries to cover everything

Over-broad pillars rarely perform well. Fix:

• split pillars by intent, not just by topic

• each pillar should represent a coherent query space

Mistake 4: clusters that are basically duplicates

Clusters must target distinct intents. Fix:

Write clusters around search intent:

• how to

• best practices

• comparison

• checklist

• common mistakes

• examples

Recommended minimum counts (so the model has impact)

For a pillar to function as a true hub, aim for:

• 1 pillar

• 8–12 clusters supporting it

That’s enough to:

• cover subtopics

• create internal link density

• build a clear topical footprint

Over time, strong pillars often grow to:

• 15–30 clusters

But the goal is not volume. The goal is coverage + structure.

How to implement this cleanly in your CMS workflow

Publishing workflow rules

1. If you publish a pillar:

   • set type = pillar

   • leave pillar_ref empty

2. If you publish a cluster:

   • set type = cluster

   • set pillar_ref = the pillar it supports

3. On publish:

   • ensure the cluster links to the pillar in the body

   • ensure the pillar has (or will have) a cluster list section

Editorial workflow rule

Never publish a cluster without a pillar. If you have a cluster idea first:

• create the pillar draft first

• then attach clusters to it

This prevents orphan content.

A simple way to decide if something is a pillar or a cluster

Ask:

Can this be fully explained in one focused article?

If yes → cluster.

Does this topic naturally contain many subtopics that deserve separate deep dives?

If yes → pillar.

If you still hesitate, use search intent:

• pillar targets a broad, evergreen query (CMS-driven websites)

• cluster targets a specific query (How to design CMS collections)

Closing

Pillar/cluster is not a writing trick. It’s an information architecture system. When you model it in your CMS with:

• type

• pillar_ref

You turn content into something you can:

• query

• automate

• scale

• maintain

And that is what makes SEO compounding possible. If you want, the next step is to design:

• pillar hub sections

• cluster navigation components

• programmatic tag/category pages built on top of these same fields