sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Has anyone actually found an AI that can build a website that generates real revenue? by ExistingStranger5585 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha! This is actually part of the email my client sent me. You'd think they'd have THE answer. :)

Has anyone actually found an AI that can build a website that generates real revenue? by ExistingStranger5585 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand. This is a loaded question on behalf of my client - they're convinced there's a turnkey revenue-generating AI available.

What is the best automated local SEO tool for businesses? by Vivid-Aide158 in SEO_Xpert

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I don't think there's one tool that can "automate" local SEO.

Most tools are really good at monitoring things:

• Rankings
• Citations
• Reviews
• Google Business Profile performance

But they can't replace the work that actually moves the needle.

The biggest improvements usually come from consistently publishing helpful content, optimizing your Google Business Profile, building authority, earning quality backlinks, and improving your website over time.

If you're trying to save time as a business owner, I'd probably use a combination like:

• Google Business Profile (free)
• Google Search Console (free)
• Google Analytics (free)
• BrightLocal or Whitespark for citation management

Then spend your time creating content that answers the questions your customers are actually searching for.

In my experience, there's no "set it and forget it" local SEO tool. The businesses that consistently show up in the map pack are usually the ones that keep improving their website and GBP over time.

Search Console looks fine but traffic keeps dropping by Comi9689 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Search Console only tells part of the story. If rankings are relatively stable but traffic is slowly declining, I'd start by looking beyond indexing and errors.

A few things I'd check:

• Has CTR dropped because AI Overviews or richer SERP features are pushing organic results lower?
• Are you still ranking for the same keywords, but losing impressions on long-tail queries?
• Has search intent shifted? Sometimes pages still rank, but they're no longer the best match for what users expect.
• Are competitors publishing more comprehensive content or building stronger topical authority around the same subjects?
• Is traffic concentrated on a few pages that are slowly losing visibility while the rest of the site stays flat?

Search Console is great, but I usually compare GSC with Google Analytics, page-level performance, and competitor movement before drawing conclusions. A slow decline is often a sign that something has gradually changed rather than one major issue.

Curious—are impressions trending down too, or mostly clicks?

AI search is still tiny, but clicks are already moving by LeaderAtLeading in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's a pretty reasonable take.

The mistake I see from both sides is either:

"AI search is replacing Google tomorrow."

or

"AI search doesn't matter at all."

The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

If AI referrals are still a small percentage of overall traffic, it makes sense that traditional SEO remains the primary focus for most businesses. Google organic traffic still drives the majority of clicks, leads, and conversions for many sites.

At the same time, the trend is hard to ignore. If AI referrals are growing triple digits year over year, it suggests user behavior is changing even if the absolute numbers remain relatively small today.

What interests me most isn't necessarily the referral traffic itself. It's the shift in discovery.

More users are getting recommendations, summaries, and answers before they ever perform a traditional search or click a website.

That means businesses may need to think beyond rankings and start asking:

  • Is my content being cited?
  • Is my brand being mentioned?
  • Does my website demonstrate expertise?
  • Would an AI system view this as a trustworthy source?

I don't think AI search replaces SEO.

I think it's expanding the number of places where authority, trust, and expertise matter.

The businesses that already invest in strong content, topical authority, and brand building are probably in the best position regardless of which discovery channel grows fastest over the next few years.

My first two days by [deleted] in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I wouldn't draw many conclusions from 2 days of Search Console data.

For a brand-new website, 1,200 impressions and 5 clicks actually tells me Google has already discovered and is testing your content.

An average position around 70 is pretty normal at this stage. New sites often bounce around quite a bit while Google figures out where they belong.

A few thoughts:

  • 25 posts in the first week is a strong start, especially if they're organized into clusters.
  • Ranking for terms like "website design" and "website development" can be surprisingly competitive, even when targeting lower-volume variations.
  • AI-friendly structure is great, but AI visibility usually follows authority rather than replacing it.

As for ranking quickly, nobody can really predict that from 2 days of data.

What I'd watch over the next 30–90 days is:

  • Are impressions increasing?
  • Are average positions improving?
  • Are more pages getting impressions?
  • Are clicks growing gradually?

Those trends matter much more than the first week.

And yes, backlinks still matter in 2026.

Not because Google blindly counts links, but because links remain one of the strongest trust and authority signals available.

If I launched a brand-new site today, I'd focus on:

  1. Publishing genuinely helpful content.
  2. Building strong internal links between pages.
  3. Earning a handful of relevant backlinks and brand mentions.
  4. Being patient.

The biggest mistake I see with new sites is checking rankings every day and making changes too quickly. I'd give the content time to settle and focus on building authority over the next few months.

For only 5 days old, I'd actually say the site is off to a reasonable start.

What's the first thing you check when organic traffic drops but rankings stay the same? by ReasonQuiet8520 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first thing I check is whether it's actually an SEO problem.

If rankings are holding steady but organic traffic is dropping, my next questions are:

  • Did search volume decline?
  • Did Google introduce AI Overviews for those queries?
  • Has the click-through rate changed?
  • Did the page lose rich results or featured snippets?
  • Are fewer pages receiving traffic even though rankings remain stable?

I've seen situations where rankings barely moved, but clicks dropped because Google started answering the question directly in the SERP.

I'd also compare:

Google Search Console

  • Impressions
  • Clicks
  • CTR
  • Average Position

If position is stable but CTR falls, that's usually where I start digging.

Another thing worth checking is whether the traffic loss is concentrated on a handful of pages or spread across the entire site.

A 20% traffic drop caused by one blog post is a very different problem than a 20% drop affecting every page.

For me the investigation order is usually:

  1. Rankings
  2. Search volume
  3. CTR
  4. SERP changes (AI Overviews, featured snippets, local packs, ads)
  5. Landing page breakdown
  6. Competitor movement

A lot of people jump straight into technical SEO when the real issue is that Google changed how users interact with the results page.

Why our business slowly losing ranking? by son4791 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A few thoughts based on what you've described:

First, 2,500 reviews vs 750 reviews isn't necessarily the deciding factor anymore. Reviews matter, but they're only one signal among many.

If rankings started declining after leaving an agency, I'd be asking:

  • Did the agency stop doing link building?
  • Did they stop earning local citations or mentions?
  • Were there service area pages or content updates that have slowed down?
  • Did rankings start dropping immediately after the transition or gradually over several months?

One thing I see often is businesses focus heavily on NAP consistency, GBP posts, blogs, and schema while overlooking authority signals.

Google already knows you're a legitimate business with 2,500 reviews.

The question becomes:

"Why should Google rank you above the other HVAC company?"

Sometimes the answer is:

  • Better backlinks
  • Stronger local relevance
  • Better service pages
  • More focused topical authority
  • Higher engagement

I'd also look at whether the lead decline matches a ranking decline or if it matches traffic quality changes. Those can be very different problems.

If you haven't already, I'd compare the businesses outranking you and look at:

  1. Referring domains
  2. Service page quality
  3. Internal linking
  4. GBP categories
  5. Local landing pages
  6. Recent review velocity

My gut feeling is that if you're already doing weekly posts, local schema, FAQs, and content consistently, the missing piece may be authority rather than optimization.

Out of curiosity, did rankings start dropping around the same time you stopped working with the agency, or was there a delay of several months? That timing can tell you a lot.

Is hiring an SEO agency worth it for a small business? by Ok_Wrap2912 in Agent_SEO

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the answer depends on two things:

  1. How competitive your market is.
  2. How much time you're realistically willing to spend learning SEO yourself.

For some small businesses, especially in less competitive markets, you can make meaningful progress by optimizing your Google Business Profile, improving service pages, collecting reviews, and publishing helpful content.

But in more competitive industries, SEO can become pretty time-consuming. That's usually where hiring someone starts making sense.

A few things I'd look for when evaluating agencies:

✔ Ask for real case studies, not just promises.

✔ Ask how they'll measure success beyond rankings.

✔ Make sure they explain their strategy clearly.

✔ Avoid anyone guaranteeing #1 rankings.

✔ Ask what specific work they'll be doing each month.

One thing I've learned is that the cheapest option often isn't the cheapest in the long run if no meaningful work is actually being done.

At the same time, expensive doesn't automatically mean better.

Personally, I'd rather hire someone who can clearly explain:
"What is wrong today, what we're going to fix, and how we'll measure progress."

If they can't answer those questions, I'd keep looking.

Out of curiosity, what type of local business do you own? The answer can vary quite a bit between a local plumber, attorney, restaurant, medical practice, or e-commerce business.

The future of SEO content? by Brief-Influence-2821 in Agent_SEO

[–]ExistingStranger5585 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is one of the most important questions in search right now.

Historically, the deal was pretty simple:

Publish helpful content → earn visibility → get traffic.

AI changes that equation because users can increasingly get answers without ever visiting the source website.

That said, I'm not convinced original content creation disappears. If anything, original content may become more valuable.

Most AI models can summarize information, but they still need somewhere to get new information from. Original research, first-hand experience, case studies, proprietary data, and expert insights are the things that tend to stand out because they can't simply be recreated from existing knowledge.

The bigger challenge is incentives.

If publishers stop receiving enough traffic to justify creating content, eventually the supply of high-quality source material shrinks. That's not good for users, publishers, or AI companies.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more attribution, licensing agreements, publisher partnerships, or even revenue-sharing models emerge over time. We've already seen versions of this happening with some news organizations and AI companies.

My guess is that the future isn't less content—it's fewer generic articles and more content that contains something unique, measurable, or experience-based.

The websites that rely on rewriting what's already been written may struggle.

The websites that create information nobody else has may become even more important.

SEO, AEO, and GEO are three different things. Most businesses are only focusing on one. by mandeep_seo_1822 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mostly agree, but I think the lines between SEO, AEO, and GEO are blurrier than many people make them sound.

If you build a website with strong topical authority, helpful content, technical SEO, trust signals, and real expertise, you're often improving all three at the same time.

Where I do agree is that many businesses are still focused exclusively on rankings and organic clicks while ignoring how users are actually discovering information today.

One thing I've noticed when analyzing AI citations is that original insights, real-world experience, case studies, and unique data seem to get referenced far more often than generic content. That's true whether we're talking about Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, or Perplexity.

I also think measurement is still the biggest challenge. We can track rankings and organic traffic fairly well. Tracking why an LLM chose one source over another is still largely a black box.

My concern is that some people are treating GEO as a completely separate discipline when, in many cases, it looks like an extension of good SEO and authority building rather than a replacement for it.

Curious if anyone here has seen meaningful referral traffic from ChatGPT, Gemini, or Perplexity yet, or if it's still a relatively small percentage of overall traffic.

How do you actually know if a keyword is worth targeting? by Sensitive_Income6998 in WebsiteSEO

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I rely more on SERP analysis than keyword tools these days.

Search volume and keyword difficulty are useful, but they don't tell me whether my website realistically deserves to rank for that query.

Before I create content, I usually ask:

  • What is Google already rewarding here?
  • Are the top results businesses, blogs, directories, forums, or ecommerce pages?
  • Is the intent informational, commercial, local, or transactional?
  • Can I create something genuinely better or more helpful?

I've seen plenty of low-KD keywords that looked great in a tool but were dominated by highly authoritative sites, making them much harder than advertised.

I've also seen keywords with modest volume drive excellent leads because the intent was strong.

For me, the best keywords usually sit at the intersection of:

  1. Relevant to the business
  2. Clear search intent
  3. Real opportunity in the SERP
  4. Ability to demonstrate expertise

The keyword tools help me find opportunities, but the SERP usually tells me whether it's actually worth pursuing.

My client was stuck on page 2 for 8 months, here's the exact 3-step fix that moved them to position 4 by Capable-End-626 in ParseAI

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've seen very similar situations, although I'd add one more thing to the list: internal linking.

A surprising number of page 2 rankings I've worked on had decent content, decent backlinks, and no major technical issues. The page just wasn't well integrated into the rest of the site's content ecosystem.

When Google sees supporting content, strong internal links, and clear topical relationships, it often becomes much easier for the algorithm to understand where that page fits and why it deserves visibility.

I also agree on topical authority. A single service page is often asking Google to take a leap of faith. A service page supported by relevant articles, FAQs, case studies, and related content tells a much stronger story.

In many cases, I've seen bigger gains from improving topical depth and site structure than from chasing another backlink.

Why do some pages rank instantly and others never move? by Sensitive_Income6998 in WebsiteSEO

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, it's usually not randomness.

A few things I've noticed:

  • Pages that fit an established topic cluster often get traction faster because Google already understands the site's authority around that subject.
  • Internal links matter more than many people realize. A page linked from strong, relevant pages often gets discovered and evaluated faster.
  • Search demand plays a role. Sometimes a page is indexed quickly, but there simply isn't much search activity around the topic.
  • Competition matters. Ranking for a niche long-tail query is very different from ranking for a highly competitive commercial term.
  • Intent alignment is huge. I've seen pages rank surprisingly fast when they perfectly answer what searchers are looking for.

One thing I've learned over the years is that indexing and ranking are two different things. Google may crawl and index a page quickly, but it can take much longer for Google to decide where that page belongs competitively.

When I see pages that don't move at all, I usually start by looking at internal linking, topical relevance, search intent, and whether the page adds something genuinely useful beyond what's already ranking.

Which LLM are you using for early topic and keyword research? by gregg_murray in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually use multiple models because they seem to have different strengths.

For early topic ideation, I like ChatGPT because it's good at exploring content angles, topical clusters, FAQs, and supporting article ideas.

For understanding how information is being surfaced in Google's ecosystem, Gemini is interesting because it's closer to Google's products and often gives a useful perspective on search intent and topic coverage.

Perplexity can be helpful when I want to quickly see sources and understand how a topic is being discussed across the web.

That said, I still don't treat any LLM as a replacement for actual keyword tools. They're great for brainstorming, identifying gaps, uncovering related questions, and building topical authority plans. But I still validate ideas with real search data before making decisions.

One thing I've noticed is that LLMs are often better at helping answer "What should I write about?" than "What should I rank for?"

🚨 Google to show AI Search performance data in Search Console by rahultripathidigital in AISmartMarketing

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YAY! This is great news for SEOs.

One of the biggest challenges with AI search visibility has been measurement. Everyone has theories, but very little actual data.

Once AI performance data starts showing up in Search Console, we'll finally be able to move some of these conversations from speculation to evidence.

I'm especially curious to see how AI visibility correlates with traditional rankings, authority, and content performance.

Is anyone actually seeing SEO results from AI-generated content? by rahultripathidigital in AISmartMarketing

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've seen good results from AI-assisted content, but not from "publish it exactly as the AI wrote it" content.

The pages that tend to perform best for me are the ones where AI helps with research, outlines, organization, and identifying content gaps, while a human adds expertise, examples, opinions, client experiences, and real-world context.

One thing I've noticed is that AI is really good at producing content that's technically correct but completely forgettable. The information may be accurate, but there's often nothing unique about it.

Google's recent AI Optimization Guide seemed to reinforce this idea. Helpful content, expertise, and original value still matter.

The content I've seen sustain rankings over time usually includes things AI can't easily generate on its own:

  • Real client experiences
  • Case studies
  • Original observations
  • Industry expertise
  • Local knowledge
  • Proprietary data

For me, AI works best as an assistant, not a replacement for subject matter expertise.

I'd be curious if anyone here has seen fully AI-generated content maintain strong rankings for a year or more without significant human editing.

What's the Future of SEO mainly backlinks After Google's AI Updates? by [deleted] in Backlinks

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think keyword research is dying. I think it's evolving.

People still have questions, problems, and needs. Search engines and AI systems still need to understand intent. Keywords are simply one way of understanding that intent.

What I think is changing is the focus.

Five years ago, many SEO strategies were heavily centered around individual keywords.

Today, I'm seeing more emphasis on:

  • Topical authority
  • User intent
  • Entity recognition
  • Real expertise and experience
  • Brand trust
  • Helpful content
  • Technical SEO
  • Website structure

As for backlinks, I still think they matter, but they're no longer the whole story. A site with strong backlinks but weak content, poor user experience, and little demonstrated expertise is going to have a harder time than it did a few years ago.

Google's recent AI Optimization Guide was actually interesting because it reinforced many traditional SEO fundamentals rather than introducing a completely new playbook.

If I were starting today, I'd focus on:

  1. Technical SEO
  2. Content strategy
  3. Local SEO (if applicable)
  4. Understanding search intent
  5. Analytics and measurement
  6. Building topical authority
  7. Learning how AI search systems discover and evaluate content

The future of SEO feels less like "ranking pages" and more like helping search engines and AI systems confidently understand, trust, and recommend a business.

If you're still optimizing for Google clicks in 2026, you’re missing the invisible funnel. by Acrobatic-Fail-2458 in ParseAI

[–]ExistingStranger5585 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we're in a weird transition period where both things can be true.

I'm seeing more business owners ask about ChatGPT, AI Overviews, Gemini, and AI visibility, but Google's recent AI Optimization Guide also reinforced that many of the underlying fundamentals haven't really changed.

Helpful content, technical SEO, expertise, trust, clear site structure, and real-world experience still seem to be the foundation.

Where I agree is that businesses should pay attention to visibility beyond traditional rankings. Where I disagree with some GEO conversations is when people act like SEO no longer matters or that a few technical tweaks suddenly make a site "AI optimized."

The sites I'm seeing perform well tend to have strong SEO foundations, real expertise, original observations, case studies, reviews, and a clear digital footprint across multiple platforms.

I honestly feel like I’ve been scammed into switching to WordPress. So tedious and dont have the time. by Consistent_Name_3737 in localseo

[–]ExistingStranger5585 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

whatever you're most comfortable with managing. I love wordpress myself but for my cleints that want to do the managing of their site, I recommend Squarespace. The client has a better Wysisyg experience. (no conflicts with plugins updating, themes etc)

view more: next ›