What we build

In-depth guides built from what your expert actually knows

A guide only becomes worth citing once it carries something a reader can't find anywhere else.

What it is
What it is, said again
How it works
A real example from whoever did the work
Why it matters, said again
A number with a story behind it
Where people go wrong
An opinion the writer actually holds
When to go long

Cutting matters as much as adding

The short answer

An in-depth guide earns a citation when it says something nobody else has published, not because it runs longer or reads more thoroughly than the next one. Length and headings help a reader scan the page. But they give a search engine or an AI assistant no reason to prefer this guide over the five others covering the same ground. The guides that get picked up carry a real example, a number with a story behind it, or an opinion the writer actually holds.

When a thorough guide still goes nowhere

Picture the guide most agencies have published at some point: every subtopic covered, two thousand words of research. It goes live, gets indexed, and sits exactly where it started. No ranking movement, no mention when someone asks an AI assistant the same question.

The usual response is to check the page itself: formatting, headings, a different keyword, more internal links. Those are reasonable checks, and none of them are the actual problem.

Two friends laughing on a sofa at home while reading a long guide together on a laptop

Why comprehensive isn't what gets rewarded any more

When several pages cover the same topic to a similar depth, length stops deciding anything. What decides it now is whether the reader actually learns something they couldn't have learned from the page ranking above it.

A guide built mainly from research tends to say what every other guide on the subject already says, because it was assembled from the same public material everyone else used.

Chomi's founder once believed length was what made a guide rank, and changed their mind after watching long guides rank briefly, then drop away. That lesson came from somewhere between 50 and 80 long-form guides and pillar pages, most of them shaped by briefing content writers on what first-hand material to include rather than by drafting the guide alone.

Search engines and LLMs don't really care about how long your content is. What they care about is can the reader learn something from it.

Chomi’s founder

Your expert already knows what the next guide needs to say. The interview is how it gets out of their head.

See how the interview works

What an in-depth guide actually needs to say

A section becomes quotable when it holds something specific. If that material has never been written down anywhere public, it has to come from the person who did the work. No amount of research turns up what nobody has published.

On bigger pieces, Chomi's founder briefs an experienced content writer directly, telling them exactly where to build in the first-hand experience and expertise a reader can recognise and the genuine quotes. The clearest case for going long is a guide on improving E-E-A-T in content: that can't be done properly in a thousand words. It needs specific examples and past experience of doing the work, not a summary of the concept.

Cutting matters as much as adding. On repetition, the founder is blunt: “No, there's never a guide where I deliberately keep repetition. Never.” Length gets sized the same way, extending a guide only when there's genuinely more to teach, with room for real examples rather than a restated point.

What makes a section quotable

A real example from whoever did the work.
A trade-off the writer actually weighed.
An opinion stated plainly instead of hedged into neutrality.
Room to go long only where there is more to teach, never a point restated.

How an in-depth guide gets built through an interview

The brief for a guide names the topics it has to cover, not the answers, and the business approves it before anyone writes a word. From there it goes through six stages, starting with the same short voice interview every Chomi page is written from.

Nothing publishes until a person has approved the finished draft.

Step 1
Business profile and documents
The AI reads what the business has said about itself and any documents uploaded, so the interview doesn't start from zero.
Step 2
A brief for the page
It sets out what the guide must cover and who it's for. The business approves it before the interview happens.
Step 3
The interview goes to whoever knows the subject
The business's own expert, or the client's, answering through a link without needing an account.
Step 4
The voice interview
Four to eight questions by voice, about fifteen minutes in total.
Step 5
Follow-up on thin answers
Where an answer comes back generic, the interview pushes again. The specific example usually arrives on the third push.
Step 6
The finished draft
Written from the brief and the interview, in design-ready blocks, then sent back for approval before it goes live.

Who this guide format suits, and who should hold off

This format earns its length when the topic has genuine depth, enough to teach something, with room for real examples and trade-offs rather than a restated definition. A narrower question usually reads better as a blog post built around one expert answer.

It doesn't suit everyone, and saying so plainly is more useful than pretending otherwise. If nobody can spend fifteen minutes talking through what they know, the interview has nothing to work with, and the result is no better than any other AI-written page. If any of those checks aren't true yet, start smaller.

Before committing to a long, interview-built guide, check

There's enough depth to the topic to fill the length honestly, not pad it to a word count.
Someone who actually does the work is willing to sit for a short voice interview.
The business has something distinctive to say, not just a tidier version of what's already published.
Nobody expects the piece to publish automatically without a human reviewing it first.

Questions people ask

The interview runs to about fifteen minutes, the time commitment for whoever is interviewed. Writing the page has always been the slower part, and that's the step the reader doesn't have to wait on.

Whoever actually does the work or knows the subject, not necessarily the account holder. If that person won't take part, the interview has nothing first-hand to draw on, and the guide ends up no better than one written from a prompt.

Yes. A human approves the brief before the interview, and approves the finished piece before it publishes. Reviewing at that stage means checking the detail is right, not rewriting the piece from scratch.

The depth changes, not the approach. A longer guide gets more room for examples and trade-offs because there's more ground to cover, but the interview works the same way whatever the page length.

The interview pushes back rather than leaving a gap, because a thin first answer is usually what someone tells everyone before they think harder. If there's genuinely nothing more, the section stays lighter rather than getting filled with invented detail.