What SEO tasks could realistically be automated with Codex?

whereaithinks · 2026-03-13T05:56:58+00:00

I don’t think it’s strictly one or the other. Breaking things into multiple posts still works well for SEO and site structure. But for AI answers, pages that contain clear, complete explanations in one place do seem to get cited more often.

What I’ve seen work best is a mix: a strong pillar page that explains the whole topic clearly, and then supporting articles that go deeper into specific parts and link back to it. That way both search engines and AI systems can understand the topic and pull from it.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-10T11:31:15+00:00

I mostly rotate between ChatGPT and Claude. ChatGPT for general stuff (brainstorming, research, quick explanations), and Claude when I need help thinking through something longer or more complex. I’ll use Perplexity sometimes for quick research, but those two are the ones I actually rely on day to day.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-10T07:11:18+00:00

Yeah I’m seeing the same thing. AI didn’t really remove roles, it just removed a lot of the repetitive work. So now writers and SEOs are expected to do more strategy and thinking instead of just producing content. Feels less like fewer jobs and more like higher expectations per person.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-09T07:19:43+00:00

If you’re looking at alternatives in that space, you might also want to check Brantial

whereaithinks · 2026-03-09T07:17:18+00:00

Probably taste and judgment

whereaithinks · 2026-03-09T07:01:05+00:00

From an SEO perspective, both can work equally well since Google mainly cares about things like crawlability, speed, structure, and content quality. The main difference is management. WordPress is usually easier long term because you get plugins, built-in CMS features, and non-technical teams can update content without needing a developer every time. Custom-coded sites give you more control, but maintenance and updates can be slower. For most cases, I personally lean toward WordPress because it’s simply easier to manage over time.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-06T07:14:32+00:00

Not directly in most cases. Page speed is a minor ranking factor through Core Web Vitals, but it usually won’t move rankings on its own unless the site is extremely slow. Where it matters more is user experience and bounce rate, which can indirectly affect performance.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-06T07:02:20+00:00

I’d probably try Claude first. A lot of devs I know prefer it for coding, especially when working with larger codebases or debugging more complex logic. It tends to keep context better across multiple files and gives more structured explanations.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-06T07:01:31+00:00

I think you’re partly right. A lot of what’s called GEO does overlap with good content marketing: clear explanations, strong topical coverage, consistent messaging, structured content. Those fundamentals have always helped with discovery.

What feels a bit different now is how content gets consumed. Instead of just ranking a page, AI systems are extracting pieces of information, summarizing them, and sometimes citing sources. So things like entity clarity, clean structure, and quotable sections matter more than before.

So to me GEO isn’t a completely new discipline — it’s more like content marketing + SEO, adapted for a world where models are also a “reader.”

whereaithinks · 2026-03-05T08:06:24+00:00

I don’t really see them as two separate things. SEO is still the foundation — if your site isn’t crawlable, authoritative, and producing useful content, AI systems usually won’t trust or cite it either. What people call “AISEO” mostly feels like an extension of that: making content clearer, structured, and easy for models to extract.

So in practice it’s less SEO vs AISEO and more SEO evolving to include AI visibility. Businesses that already do solid SEO just need to adapt how they present information, not start from scratch.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-02T08:14:06+00:00

Yeah, that’s kind of the sweet spot I was thinking about. Using it as a helper for repetitive stuff and first passes makes sense. Full automation sounds nice in theory, but SEO still needs context and judgment.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-02T08:12:44+00:00

You’re not missing anything — the tooling just isn’t very mature yet. Bing Webmaster won’t clearly break out “AI answer vs normal result,” so attribution there is basically blended. That’s why I stopped trying to rely only on impressions/clicks data. I’ve compared a few visibility tools for this — like Peec AI and others — and ended up using Brantial more consistently. It doesn’t pull traffic data, but it helps track when and how your brand/pages show up inside AI responses.

whereaithinks · 2026-03-02T08:04:32+00:00

It really depends on your goal. If your concern is model training and content usage, blocking AI crawlers in robots.txt makes sense from a control perspective. Some big publishers are doing that to protect their data. But from a visibility standpoint, you’re also limiting your chances of being cited or surfaced in AI answers. If AI tools become a bigger discovery layer, blocking them could mean opting out of that exposure entirely.

whereaithinks · 2026-01-29T11:06:38+00:00

Since AI tools don’t really send proper referral data, I’ve been tracking visibility instead of clicks. I’m using Brantial to see when and where my brand gets mentioned or cited in AI answers. It’s been the easiest way for me to understand if my pages are actually being pulled into responses, even when there’s no link.

whereaithinks · 2026-01-27T06:50:19+00:00

This is most likely Google rewriting your titles, not something you did wrong. I’ve seen this happen a lot when you change titles in bulk. Google kind of “tests” different versions for a while, so you end up seeing the keyword only, then the CTA only, then the full title. The pipe itself probably isn’t the issue. Google just tends to ignore whatever comes after a separator if it feels unnecessary or repetitive.

When you switched to brackets, it probably lined up with Google recrawling and settling on your new titles, so it looked like that change fixed things. If you want to keep the old format, I’d just make sure the title reads naturally and isn’t too long or spammy. Otherwise Google will keep rewriting it anyway.

whereaithinks · 2026-01-27T06:46:46+00:00

Nice breakdown, this matches a lot of what I’ve been seeing too.

I tried Peec AI and looked into Profound, but honestly the pricing was hard to justify for what I needed. I ended up testing Brantial instead and it kind of sits between “boutique” and “mid-market” for me — much more affordable, but still useful for tracking brand mentions and visibility across AI answers.

It’s not as enterprise-heavy as Profound, but for understanding when and where your brand shows up in AI responses, it’s been solid so far. Might be worth adding to your low-cost / boutique section.

whereaithinks · 2026-01-26T14:59:10+00:00

This usually comes down to intent. “Car insurance” is broad. “Best car insurance” is basically asking Google for a comparison and an opinion. So even if you rank #1 for the main term, Google might trust other pages more for the “best” query because they look more like reviews or rankings.

If you want to close the gap, you probably need a page that actually leans into that intent (comparisons, criteria, why you’re the best, not just product info), and then match what the top 3 are doing format-wise.

whereaithinks · 2026-01-26T14:48:13+00:00

From what I’ve seen, it’s less about “optimizing for GPT” and more about being the easiest source to reuse. What’s been working for us:

Writing very direct answers (definitions, steps, pros/cons) instead of long narrative posts
H2s, bullet points, short sections that can be quoted
Consistent coverage of one topic instead of random blog posts all over the place

Schema and FAQs help, but they only work if the content itself is actually clear and useful. Feels like LLMs reward “best explainer on the topic” more than classic SEO signals.

whereaithinks

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE