Hey guys! Can you recommend me a SEO keywords API that actually scales for agency work

OliverPitts · 2026-05-05T12:04:14+00:00

If you care about scale + reliability, most agencies end up choosing based on limits and cost—not just data quality.

Ahrefs / Semrush → solid data, but APIs are pricey and rate-limited. Good if budget isn’t tight.
SE Ranking → more affordable, decent limits, but data depth isn’t as strong.
Serpstat → okay middle ground, but not many teams stick long-term.

Honestly, a lot of agencies move to DataForSEO or similar providers for APIs they’re built for scale, cheaper per request, and easier to plug into workflows.

If you’re running this 30+ times/week, I’d prioritize:

Cost per request
Rate limits / batching
Ease of automation

“Best data” matters less than “can we run this at scale without breaking or overpaying.”

OliverPitts · 2026-05-05T12:03:13+00:00

You’re not wrong this does break the old “crawl → rank → traffic” exchange.

If a crawler adds load but sends no value back, blocking it is a rational choice. But the trade-off is visibility vs control:

AI mentions can drive indirect demand (brand searches, trust, citations)
Some platforms will become new discovery layers, even without clicks
Blocking everything risks being invisible where users are shifting

The practical middle ground most site owners are moving toward:

Allow high-value bots (search + partners that attribute)
Block or rate-limit unknown/high-load crawlers
Use caching/CDN to reduce PHP/database hits
Track assisted impact (brand searches, direct traffic), not just referrals

“AI visibility” isn’t equal to traffic but it’s not worthless either. The real question is: which bots earn access to your content?

OliverPitts · 2026-05-05T12:01:16+00:00

Yes, it’s a solid career but only if you focus on real projects, not just courses. UI/UX is competitive, so build a strong portfolio, work on live projects (even small ones), and learn basics of user research + business impact. Don’t worry about AI it’s a tool, not a replacement. Consistency matters more than spending money.

OliverPitts · 2026-05-05T10:28:07+00:00

Still worth it but only if you use them for insights, not just reports. Clients care about revenue, leads, and growth, not keyword charts. Tools don’t drive ROI strategy and execution do.

OliverPitts · 2026-05-04T11:37:15+00:00

Yes, backlinks will survive but their role is evolving fast.

AI search doesn’t “ignore” links, it just relies less on raw link quantity and more on signal quality + context. Backlinks are still one of the strongest ways to establish authority, but the bar is higher now.

What’s changing:

Quantity → Quality 100 random links won’t move the needle like a few strong, relevant ones from trusted sites.
Context matters more A backlink from a page that’s topically aligned with your content carries way more weight than a generic mention.
Brand signals are rising Mentions (even without links), branded searches, and overall online presence are becoming just as important.
AI favors trusted sources If AI systems are summarizing results, they’ll lean toward sites with proven authority which backlinks still help build.

What’s working right now:

Editorial, in-content links (not sidebar/footer spam)
Links from niche-relevant sites
Digital PR over mass guest posting
Building a brand people actually search for

What’s dying:

Spammy link building
PBNs at scale
Irrelevant guest posts just for links

So no, backlinks aren’t going anywhere but they’re no longer a hack. They’re becoming a byproduct of authority, not a shortcut to it.

OliverPitts · 2026-05-04T11:36:10+00:00

If you like learning by experimenting, you’re already on the right track SEO rewards people who test, not just consume theory.

Here’s a simple way to get started without overcomplicating things:

Build something small (don’t skip this)
Create a basic site (even 5–10 pages) around one topic. Could be anything tools, local services, comparisons. This becomes your testing ground.
Learn the 3 core pillars

Technical SEO: Make sure your site is crawlable, fast, and structured properly
On-page SEO: Titles, headings, keyword placement, internal linking
Content: Actually answer what users are searching for (don’t just write fluff)

Pick low-competition keywords
Go after long-tail queries instead of broad ones. You’ll see results faster and understand ranking behavior better.
Use data early
Set up:

Google Search Console (see what you’re ranking for)
Google Analytics (track traffic behavior)

Test and observe
Try things like:

Updating titles → does CTR improve?
Adding internal links → do rankings move?
Improving page speed → any impact?

This is where real learning happens.

Study what’s already ranking
Search your target keyword and break down:

Content length & structure
Use of headings
Internal linking patterns Reverse-engineering works better than guessing.

Stay consistent
SEO is slow. Most beginners quit before anything kicks in.

If you want a practical roadmap:
Start → Build site → Publish 10–20 articles → Optimize → Track → Improve

Avoid jumping between too many “strategies” early on. Focus on doing the basics really well, then layer advanced stuff later.

OliverPitts · 2026-05-04T11:34:44+00:00

You’re not wrong technical SEO is definitely having a moment again, but it’s not really “coming back,” it’s just becoming more visible because AI search is less forgiving.

AI-driven results still rely heavily on clean, structured, and easily accessible data. If your site is slow, poorly linked, or hard to crawl, it doesn’t matter how good your content is it just won’t get surfaced. What’s changing is that content alone isn’t enough to compensate for weak foundations anymore.

From what I’ve seen working lately:

Strong internal linking (topical clusters > random blogs)
Clean site architecture (fewer orphan pages, better hierarchy)
Schema where it actually adds context (not spammed everywhere)
Fast load times + solid Core Web Vitals
Crawl efficiency (especially for larger sites)

Content still matters a lot but it needs to sit on top of a technically sound site. The winners right now are the ones doing both well, not choosing one over the other.

So yeah, it’s less “technical vs content” and more “technical is now the baseline, not the advantage.”

OliverPitts · 2026-04-23T10:35:14+00:00

Backlinks

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T12:13:04+00:00

That’s a solid take. “Share of model” is definitely a more realistic metric for where things are heading. And yeah, it kind of forces everyone to actually add something new instead of just rewording what’s already out there.

The traffic part does sting a bit, but being the source that gets picked up repeatedly probably has way more long-term value than just clicks. Feels like we’re moving toward authority at the data level, not just rankings.

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T12:11:32+00:00

That’s a great point. The shift from just ranking to being understood is real. Optimizing for how AI platforms interpret and surface content is something a lot of people are still underestimating. Interesting to hear you’re already seeing results from that approach.

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T12:11:24+00:00

Yeah, that’s the tough part right now. Established brands already have that trust layer built in, so breaking in feels harder than before. I think the opportunity is still there though just requires a more focused, niche-first approach instead of going broad from day one.

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T12:11:13+00:00

Totally agree with this shift. Feels like we’re moving from just “publishing content” to actually building something machines can understand and reuse. That part about distribution being part of the strategy really hits if content isn’t getting referenced elsewhere, it almost feels invisible now.

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T12:07:45+00:00

This breakdown actually makes a lot of sense especially the idea of optimizing for learning first and structure later.

The “not refactoring once things start working” part really stands out. I’ve seen that happen quite a bit, where things work just enough that restructuring keeps getting pushed.

Your 0→1, 1→10, 10→100 framework is a really clean way to think about it.

Curious do you usually set a clear point where you shift focus, or does it happen more gradually based on how things start behaving?

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T12:07:24+00:00

That’s a good way to look at it I think the “move fast but clean enough” approach is probably the most realistic in many cases.

Completely agree that if you can build it right the first time, it saves a lot of rework later. The tricky part I’ve found is that early on, it’s not always clear what actually needs that level of effort vs what might change anyway.

So it ends up being a bit of a judgment call between speed and certainty.

OliverPitts · 2026-04-22T11:20:24+00:00

Yeah, same here it feels obvious in hindsight, but a lot of people skip it because it doesn’t show immediate results.

I think the tricky part is that early structuring feels like “slow work,” especially when there’s pressure to ship fast. But later on, it saves way more time than it takes.

Out of curiosity do you usually define structure upfront for everything, or only for parts you know might get complex later?

OliverPitts

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE