Top-Three Information Gain Test
Prove your draft adds facts absent from the leading search results
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 99%
Before publication, search Google for the draft's headline and read the top three relevant results. Treat those pages as the current information baseline. Compare their substantive facts, recommendations, and examples with the draft, then mark facts present only in your piece. The episode proposes a concrete threshold: you should be able to circle three facts that do not appear in those leading results. If you cannot, information gain is effectively zero, even when the wording is original. Strengthen the piece with proprietary data, firsthand tests, documented cases, measurements, or evidence that challenges conventional wisdom. Finally, verify that the novel facts are accurate and materially useful; obscure trivia or cosmetic reframing does not satisfy the test.
Origin
Extracted from Marketing Against The Grain as a pre-publication decision rule for measuring whether content contributes new information.
Core principles
- 01A useful article must add knowledge rather than rephrase existing rankings
- 02Search competitors establish the minimum informational baseline
- 03New facts should be material, verifiable, and relevant
- 04Contradicting conventional wisdom requires evidence rather than novelty alone
How to run it
- 1
Search the Headline
Run a Google search using the draft's headline or closest natural-language query. Identify the three results that most directly satisfy the same reader intent.
Pro tip Repeat the search with one close variant if the exact headline produces irrelevant results.
Watch out Do not cherry-pick weak competitors while ignoring the pages readers are most likely to encounter.
- 2
Map the Existing Baseline
Read the top three results and list their substantive facts, recommendations, evidence, and examples. Consolidate duplicates so repeated industry advice is easy to recognize.
Pro tip Distinguish factual contributions from headings, tone, and formatting.
Watch out A different structure does not automatically mean different information.
- 3
Circle Unique Facts
Mark facts in the draft that are absent from all three comparison pages. Require at least three material additions before treating the piece as information-positive.
Pro tip Give priority to original measurements, experiments, customer outcomes, and counterintuitive findings.
Watch out Minor trivia and unsupported opinions should not be counted as information gain.
- 4
Close the Evidence Gap
If the draft has fewer than three unique facts, gather proprietary data, conduct a test, interview a practitioner, or document a relevant firsthand case. Revise the angle if no meaningful evidence can be obtained.
Pro tip Look for common advice your own records can confirm or disprove.
Watch out Do not fabricate novelty to satisfy the threshold.
- 5
Verify Usefulness and Accuracy
Check the provenance and relevance of every unique fact. Confirm that the new information changes understanding, comparison, or action for the intended reader.
Pro tip Ask what decision each new fact improves.
Watch out Novel but unreliable information reduces quality rather than increasing it.
In the wild
Generic bidding-war pages advise buyers to write personal letters. A real-estate team compares 41 offers from 2025 and reports a 31% acceptance rate with letters versus 54% without them. Those figures are absent from generic tactical lists and materially challenge their advice.
→ The article passes the information-gain test with original data that changes a buyer's decision.
A countertop company compares its article with existing rankings and finds mostly generic material descriptions. It adds named customer projects, household types, slab names, install photographs, local recommendations, and reasons its team steered customers toward different materials.
→ The revised article contributes firsthand market evidence instead of duplicating public summaries.
Common mistakes
Counting Rewording as New Information
Changing phrasing, headings, or examples without adding facts does not increase what the reader learns.
Using Irrelevant Novelty
A fact absent from competitors is not valuable if it does not help satisfy the reader's intent.
Skipping Verification
New claims must remain traceable and accurate; novelty does not excuse weak evidence.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for publishers assessing whether a planned article deserves to exist and can compete through original information.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for purely navigational pages or mandatory reference content whose purpose is accurate consolidation rather than novelty.
From the transcript
“Before publishing, uh Google your own headline, read the top three results.”
“If you cannot circle three facts in your piece that aren't already in those three, your information gain is zero.”
“Meaning you need to have new things in what you're about to publish that are not at all in those first three results on Google.”
From the episode
How to Rank #1 on Google in 2026 (The 6-Step SEO Playbook)