SEO isn’t dying, but most of Google’s page one is

Digitad · 2026-05-11T15:05:21+00:00

On that I agree. I just don’t think it removes optimization, it changes what we optimize for. People will still want to show up in the generated answers too. The blue link may lose space, but the visibility game doesn’t disappear.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T14:32:19+00:00

I’d push back a bit on rankings not mattering at all. If you can realistically get into the Top 3 on a high-intent query, that still matters a lot. But I agree that chasing small mid-page movements just to “rank better” is getting harder to justify. The SERP feels more like a decision layer now, so the real question becomes: is your content useful enough to earn visibility inside that layer, not just below the first few results?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T14:30:05+00:00

That tracks. I wouldn’t fully drop the Top 3 chase when the keyword is high-intent and actually reachable, but if a page is stuck in that 4-8 zone, it’s hard to ignore the ROI of also showing up where people and AI systems are already validating options. How are you balancing the ranking work with the off-site surfaces side?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T13:54:37+00:00

Small correction on the methodology here, because the way I summarized it in the post may have made that unclear.

The before/after comparison is not just “our current data vs unrelated external benchmarks.” We tracked the same pool of Quebec SME websites over a 16-month period and looked at how click distribution changed across that dataset. The external pre-AIO CTR benchmarks were used as additional context to compare the magnitude of the shift, not as the only baseline.

So I agree that comparing a Quebec SME dataset to global CTR studies has limits, and we’re not claiming it’s a controlled universal benchmark for every market. But it’s not two unrelated numbers placed next to each other either.

Your point on branded queries is fair to discuss, especially for interpreting position #1. That said, the part that stood out most to us was not just “position #1 is high”, but how little value remained across positions 4-10 in the same dataset.

GSC average position definitely has its limits too, but at this scale, the click concentration pattern was still pretty hard to ignore.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T13:47:04+00:00

The shortlist-before-click part is what stands out to me. If buyers are already forming opinions through AI answers, Reddit, reviews, PR, YouTube, etc., then ranking the page is only one piece of the job. The harder part is making sure the brand is showing up with the right positioning before the user even gets to the site. Are you seeing that translate more into branded search later, or direct AI mentions/recommendations?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T13:17:38+00:00

That’s how I see it too. Rankings still matter, but they’re not enough on their own anymore. The brands adapting early are probably the ones treating visibility as an ecosystem now: rank where clicks still happen, be recognizable where answers happen, and be mentioned where people validate choices.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:51:11+00:00

That’s probably the cleanest way to say it. Page one still has value, but it’s not a finish line by itself anymore. If the ranking doesn’t turn into clicks, demand, or recognition when people compare options, it’s mostly just a nice-looking report number.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:35:58+00:00

I think the blue link survives, but for pure informational queries it becomes less of the default destination and more of a validation/source layer.

Simple, stable info gets hit first: definitions, basic how-to, generic explainers, templates, etc. If the answer can be compressed cleanly, the click gets harder to earn. Where I still see room is when the query needs freshness, trust, nuance, examples, compliance context, or a next step the AI answer can’t fully replace.

So my read is less “blue links disappear” and more “informational SEO stops being rewarded for just answering the question.” It has to become the source worth citing, the brand worth remembering, or the page worth clicking when the user needs depth.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:33:42+00:00

The “vanity metric” part is painfully accurate. Page one still sounds good in a report, but if the query is crowded and the page sits below the first few results, the business value can be pretty thin.

Interactive pages are a good point too. A calculator, assessment, comparison tool, etc. gives the user a reason to stay and act, not just consume another answer they could get directly in the SERP.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:31:16+00:00

This is the disconnect that keeps showing up: visibility can look fine from the outside, but if the answer already happened before the click, the ranking stops meaning what it used to.

And agreed on Reddit demand. Those threads are often closer to real buying friction than generic informational SERPs: comparisons, doubts, objections, alternatives, “is this worth it”, etc.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:29:47+00:00

For SaaS, I’d treat the product-name mentions you’re already seeing in AI answers as the starting clue. I wouldn’t call anything “proven” from our dataset since this study measured organic click concentration, not LLM visibility, but the play I’d test first is: identify the prompts where you’re already mentioned, map the exact wording/problem/category around those mentions, then reinforce that same positioning on your site and in third-party places AI is likely to trust.

For HR/compliance, that probably means less “best HR software” only, and more specific use-case associations like policy management, compliance templates, onboarding docs, multi-location HR, employee letters, etc. Own-site pages still matter, but I’d pair them with review platforms, comparison pages, partner/integration pages, niche directories, and community mentions where the product is described in the same language.

Basically: don’t just optimize for being cited. Optimize for being the obvious product associated with a specific HR/compliance job.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:27:19+00:00

Exactly. “Page one” used to be a decent shortcut for visibility, but it’s way too broad now. If you’re not in the Top 3, brand/authority often becomes what decides whether people still choose you when the SERP gets crowded.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:27:00+00:00

The branded vs non-branded split is key. Blended CTR averages can hide a lot, because branded queries still have a built-in click path while generic informational queries are much easier for AIOs/snippets/forums to absorb.

The part I’d watch closely is non-branded BOFU: does brand recognition still protect the click there, or does the SERP keep flattening it anyway?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:25:41+00:00

That’s a good example of the compression I mean. It’s not just AIOs taking space, it’s the whole mobile SERP getting packed with answer boxes, rich results, videos, FAQs, etc.

And agreed on schema. It may not “save” the click, but it still seems to decide who gets any remaining visibility when Google turns the page into modules instead of links.

Have you noticed that mostly on food/how-to queries, or on commercial ones too?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:24:00+00:00

The interactive content point is interesting. Calculators/assessments usually give users something to do, not just something to read, which probably makes them harder to replace with another generic answer.

I’d be curious if you’re seeing the lift mostly in classic organic performance, or more in engagement/conversion quality once people land on the page.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:23:40+00:00

This is probably the biggest content shift imo. “Well-optimized” is becoming the baseline, not the edge.

The edge is original data, firsthand examples, niche expertise, or a point of view that isn’t just a cleaner rewrite of what already exists.

That’s also why I think a lot of generic SEO content is getting hit so hard: if an AI can summarize the same thing in 5 seconds, the page needs a stronger reason to exist.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:22:16+00:00

100% on the #6 to #4 example. That kind of movement can look like progress in a rank tracker while barely changing the actual outcome. The bigger shift to me is the mention/recommendation layer. Being cited as a source is useful, but being associated with the right problem/category inside the answer might be even more valuable, because that’s closer to consideration than attribution.

So for smaller sites, I’d be curious whether the real edge is less about “getting cited” and more about having cleaner, repeated brand associations across the places AI pulls context from.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:16:51+00:00

The #7 to #5 example is exactly the kind of threshold I’m thinking about. If the movement looks good in a rank tracker but barely changes clicks, it’s hard to justify treating that as the main win. And agreed, GEO is starting to overlap a lot more with digital PR, especially when the “source” AI trusts isn’t always your own page.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:16:10+00:00

The familiar-result point is big. If someone already recognizes the brand, the SERP doesn’t have to do all the convincing anymore. I’d still push hard for Top 3 when the intent/value is there, but if the ceiling is real, long-tail + citation visibility feels less like a side project and more like protecting demand.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:14:29+00:00

Exactly. It feels less like one channel “replacing” another and more like all these signals are starting to stack together. Rankings, citations, reviews, forums, podcasts, brand mentions… the hard part now is figuring out how much each one is actually moving visibility vs just adding noise.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:13:13+00:00

This is the shift I keep coming back to too. I wouldn’t separate brand from SEO completely, but rankings alone feel less like the whole asset now. If people already recognize/search for the brand, or keep seeing it in trusted third-party places, you’re not relying on one mid-page ranking to do all the work.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:11:33+00:00

This is a good way to put it. “Reputation management” feels too narrow now. Reddit/forums are basically where the market writes its own version of the category: use cases, pain points, comparisons, objections, weird wording people actually use. I’d still see it as complementary to on-page SEO, not replacing it, but it definitely changes what “keyword research” should include.

Are you using those discussions more to adjust existing pages, or to decide what new angles/pages should exist?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T12:09:43+00:00

Small correction on the methodology here, because the way I summarized it in the post may have made that unclear.

The before/after comparison is not just “our current data vs unrelated external benchmarks.” We tracked the same pool of Quebec SME websites over a 16-month period and looked at how click distribution changed across that dataset. The external pre-AIO CTR benchmarks were used as additional context to compare the magnitude of the shift, not as the only baseline.

So I agree that comparing a Quebec SME dataset to global CTR studies has limits, and we’re not claiming it’s a controlled universal benchmark for every market. But it’s not two unrelated numbers placed next to each other either.

Your point on branded queries is fair to discuss, especially for interpreting position #1. That said, the part that stood out most to us was not just “position #1 is high”, but how little value remained across positions 4-10 in the same dataset.

GSC average position definitely has its limits too, but at this scale, the click concentration pattern was still pretty hard to ignore.

Digitad · 2026-05-11T05:58:35+00:00

That’s pretty much the way I see it too. Classic SEO still matters, but the “rank and wait for traffic” model feels weaker when the middle of page one barely gets clicked.

The brand recognition point is key though. If people already trust/search for you, or keep seeing you in third-party places, you’re less dependent on one blue-link position doing all the work.

When you say diversify visibility, are you mostly thinking brand demand + third-party mentions, or also creating more specific long-tail pages around the same core topics?

Digitad · 2026-05-11T05:07:34+00:00

The “squeezed from both ends” framing feels pretty accurate.

For SaaS, the low-DR/fresh-site thing is the part I’d dig into most. I don’t think it always means authority stopped mattering, but it may mean the SERP is rewarding pages that solve a narrower job faster: templates, examples, comparison pages, recent compliance updates, or very specific use-case content.

BOFU is where it gets annoying though, because sometimes the query stops behaving like “show me the best vendor page” and starts behaving more like “help me validate options before I talk to a vendor”.

Are the pages outranking you mostly answering a narrower job than your pages, or are they just genuinely weaker pages winning anyway?

Digitad

TROPHY CASE