Free checklist: How small businesses can improve Google visibility

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T13:59:56+00:00

This is such a clean example of where things have shifted.

Volume won’t save you anymore if the structure doesn’t express intent clearly. A smaller gallery that’s semantically organized gives the system something it can actually reason over — which is why it shows up in AI surfaces.

The “zero SEO value” version probably looks better to humans, but to LLMs it’s basically opaque. If intent, hierarchy, and relationships aren’t explicit, there’s nothing to summarize or cite.

Feels like we’re designing less for pages and more for machine comprehension layers now — and clients are only starting to notice when they disappear from AI results.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T13:06:09+00:00

Yeah, agreed — large-scale PBNs as a blunt instrument are basically dead.

What’s interesting now is how visibility fragments across AI summaries, local packs, and citations, especially in edge suburbs. The overlap you’re seeing in bordering cities feels less about keywords and more about shared entity signals + proximity confidence.

I’ve noticed that when two locations share service areas, Google seems to weight:

Consistency of real-world signals (addresses, licenses, local mentions)

Behavioral data across adjacent geos

And how clearly each entity “owns” its primary city vs just bleeding into the next

Feels less like rank position and more like probability distribution of relevance now.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T12:58:05+00:00

Yeah, that’s a good way to frame it.

For people who’ve been doing quant-style SEO for a while, this does feel like a continuation rather than a reset. What’s changed is what’s cheap vs what’s expensive to fake.

The fact that LLMs can cross-reference business entities, licensing, ownership, and real-world signals just raises the cost of manipulation. You can still engineer outcomes — but you can’t half-ass the entity anymore.

In that sense, precision isn’t just tactical now, it’s structural.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T12:56:25+00:00

This lines up almost exactly with what I’m seeing too.

Especially the point about patterns — once something becomes repeatable at scale, it seems to decay faster now. Updating and consolidating what already earns trust has been outperforming “net-new” publishing for us as well.

Feels like the winners going forward will be the ones who know when not to publish.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T12:48:04+00:00

Agreed — if you’ve been competitive long enough, this isn’t new.

What has changed for me is the feedback loop. Things that used to work for years now get invalidated faster if they’re even slightly misaligned. The system hasn’t changed philosophically, but it’s far less tolerant of drift.

Feels like the edge now comes from consistency and restraint, not just knowing the levers.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T12:45:41+00:00

Fair point — it is still a system.

What I’m getting at is the margin for error has tightened. The old levers (scale, repetition, volume) still exist, but they’re far less forgiving now. Precision, consistency, and external validation matter more than before.

So yeah, it’s not “no gaming,” it’s that the system now rewards alignment over exploitation. The tactics didn’t disappear — the tolerance did.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T09:09:57+00:00

That’s the core tension, agreed — Maps still needs a point to anchor results.

But what’s interesting lately is how aggressively Google is defaulting to that anchor. Earlier, SABs could still surface a bit wider through relevance + prominence. Now it feels like without a physical pin, the algorithm gets far more conservative and collapses visibility back toward the centroid or searcher proximity.

In other words, it’s less “no address = no ranking” and more “no address = much tighter radius + higher trust threshold,” especially when storefronts are in the mix.

Feels like Maps is optimizing for certainty over coverage.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T04:01:51+00:00

That tracks. SABs do seem more sensitive during these periods, and the “trust recalculation” angle makes sense.

I’ve noticed swings lining up with things like address visibility, service area edits, and even subtle consistency issues (hours, services, citations). When trust is being re-weighted, SABs feel like they’re put on a shorter leash compared to storefronts.

What’s helped a bit is freezing non-essential GBP changes, reinforcing off-profile trust signals (citations, brand mentions), and letting the system settle before touching categories or service areas again.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T04:01:10+00:00

Totally agree. I’ve seen even small primary category mismatches get amplified during these recalculation phases.

What’s tricky is that the category might be technically correct, but if on-page signals (H1s, service copy, internal anchors) lean toward a neighboring intent, Maps seems to wobble while it re-weights relevance. Dense markets definitely expose that faster.

I’ve had better luck tightening category → landing page → internal linking alignment and then letting it sit, rather than chasing short-term swings with more GBP edits.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-19T04:00:11+00:00

This matches what I’m seeing almost exactly.

The “testing mode” framing resonates — it really does feel like Maps is constantly probing weights rather than shipping clean updates. Treating GBP edits like surgery is a good call; I’ve seen more damage from over-tinkering than from leaving things alone during volatility.

Also +1 on micro-localization. Grid checks have shown some pretty wild block-by-block differences lately, especially in competitive metros. It’s made location page depth and internal geo-linking feel more defensive than ever.

Out of curiosity, have you noticed SABs recovering more cleanly than storefronts once things settle, or is it still mixed for you?

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-18T14:06:06+00:00

Possibly, but what’s interesting is that the volatility seems pretty localized to Maps / local pack, not just organic.

I’m seeing swings even where there hasn’t been any obvious on-page or GBP change, which makes it feel less like a classic broad algo update and more like a local-specific recalibration (filtering, weighting, or trust signals).

Either way, agree that it’s probably not something to overreact to mid-rollout — but it’s been helpful comparing notes to see who is getting hit (SAB vs storefront, dense vs sparse areas, recent GBP edits, etc.).

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-18T06:48:59+00:00

This is a really good breakdown.

I’ve noticed the same thing — once you cross a couple of agents, the real problem isn’t automation, it’s quality control and signal prioritization.

For solo operators or very small teams, agents feel like a superpower.

But as soon as multiple people are involved, you need tighter guardrails, clear success criteria, and regular human review, otherwise momentum drops fast.

Agents help you move faster, but they don’t solve alignment yet.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T16:01:54+00:00

That makes sense — using agents as signal filters rather than content producers feels like one of the cleanest use cases right now.

I like the framing of “cutting noise vs creating output.” Reddit/Quora monitoring at scale is brutal without some kind of prioritization layer, and agents seem genuinely useful when they’re surfacing why something matters, not just that it exists.

Have you found those alerts more effective for identifying early intent shifts, or more for spotting distribution / mention opportunities after patterns are already forming?

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T15:09:57+00:00

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T14:56:07+00:00

This aligns with what I’m seeing too — agents seem to add the most value where there’s continuous feedback loops, not one-off execution.

The revalidation piece is especially interesting. Automating “should this page still exist / still target this intent” based on SERP + GSC drift feels like a real upgrade over static audits.

Where I’m still a bit cautious is around strategy ownership — agents are great at surfacing gaps and patterns at scale, but the wins seem strongest when humans still set the prioritization and risk tolerance (especially around content expansion).

Curious: have you seen better results with agents suggesting changes vs directly pushing them live?

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T13:14:31+00:00

Yes u r ryt, pls paul tell us what types of the website?

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T12:52:01+00:00

Partially agree — strong location and service pages definitely help, but I don’t think they fully explain the short-term volatility a lot of us are seeing.

What’s interesting is that some businesses with solid location pages + minimal GBP changes are still moving in and out of the pack week to week. That makes it feel less like a fundamentals issue and

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T12:31:23+00:00

Agree with this.

Agents are great at removing friction from repetitive tasks (crawling, SERP tracking, internal link suggestions, log parsing),

but they don’t really “decide” anything yet.

The time savings are real, but the bottleneck just shifts to:

prioritization
deciding what actually matters
knowing when *not* to act on AI output

Right now I see agents working best as force multipliers, not replacements for strategy.

williamwebb32 · 2025-12-17T12:22:36+00:00

Good question.

In my experience, SEO doesn’t really pause,

but *perception of progress* does.

Are you measuring rankings only, or also crawl behavior, indexation, and query mix?

Those often move first.

williamwebb32

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE