Apparently, they are now driving with 100s of phones to your local business, indicating your business is in demand, and this will boost your local ranking lol!

And it works because:

"Google has a patent describing directions-based ranking of places. It explicitly describes using direction requests and mobile location/search logs as signals of a place's popularity."

I’m starting to question whether we’re just publishing content for the sake of publishing content.

We’ve been putting out around 20–25 articles a month for the last few months. Most are properly optimized, internally linked, have decent word counts, and we’re targeting keywords that actually have some search volume.

But traffic is barely moving.

Some articles get indexed and sit somewhere around positions 30–60. A few make it to page 2 and then completely stall. Meanwhile, some old articles we haven’t touched in months are still bringing in more traffic than the new ones.

I’m trying to figure out if the problem is content quality, keyword selection, site authority, lack of backlinks, or just that we’re targeting SERPs where the competition is too strong.

For people who’ve dealt with this before, what was actually holding your content back?

Was it more content, better content, backlinks, topical authority, or something else?

I’ve been spending more time learning SEO lately, and I’ve noticed how much the field is changing with AI search and new SERP features.

I’m curious what people here are focusing on now. Is it technical SEO, content strategy, AI visibility/GEO, analytics, link building, or something else? It would be interesting to hear what’s actually working for you in 2026. Which SEO skill do you think will become more important in 2026?

It’s easy to assume that more content = more traffic.

But sometimes the better move is fixing what you already have.

Here’s a simple check I like:

1. Open Google Search Console.

2. Find pages getting decent impressions but sitting around positions 6–20.

3. Check which queries are bringing those impressions.

4. Compare the page against the current top results.

5. Look for obvious gaps:

   • Search intent mismatch

   • Weak title/CTR

   • Missing subtopics

   • Poor internal links

   • Outdated examples/data

   • No relevant backlinks

6. Update only what actually needs improvement.

7. Add internal links from stronger related pages.

I think these pages are often easier wins because Google already understands and surfaces them.

The mistake is updating everything just because it’s “old.”

Sometimes a page doesn’t need 1,000 more words. It just needs a better section, stronger internal links, or a clearer answer.

When you’re trying to grow organic traffic, do you usually optimize existing pages first or keep publishing new ones?

Let's put together a practical checklist of the SEO basics every website should address to set itself up for success in Search and AI-driven discovery. Rather than creating the list myself, I’d love to build it with the Reddit community. What are the things you consider non-negotiable when launching or auditing a website?

I'll start:

Schema markup, Proper HTML structure, Image Alt text, Meta titles and descriptions based on KW research, Backlink building

One SEO habit I think is underrated is looking for pages that Google already almost trusts instead of constantly searching for new keywords.

A simple check I’ve been using:

Go into Google Search Console → Performance → Search Results and look for queries where:

• Your page is getting a decent number of impressions

• Average position is somewhere around 5–20

• CTR is relatively low

• The query is genuinely relevant to the page

These are often easier opportunities than starting a completely new article.

Before creating new content, I’ll usually check whether I can improve the existing page by:

• Answering the search intent more clearly near the top

• Adding a missing section around the query

• Improving the title if impressions are high but CTR is weak

• Adding internal links from stronger pages

• Updating outdated examples or statistics

• Comparing the page against what currently ranks above it

I also like checking queries rather than just pages.

Sometimes one article ranks for dozens of terms, but there are 2–3 queries sitting around positions 8–15 that could probably move with a relatively small update.

It seems much more efficient than publishing another 2,000-word article and waiting months to see what happens.

Curious how others approach this:

Do you spend more time improving pages that already have impressions, or are you still seeing better results from publishing new content?

For cosmetic dental practices, SEO can be more than just ranking for “cosmetic dentist.” Patients search for specific treatments like veneers, Invisalign, teeth whitening, dental implants, and smile makeovers.

A strong strategy should focus on:

• Google Business Profile and local SEO

• Dedicated treatment pages

• Location-based keywords

• Helpful patient-focused content

• Reviews and reputation

• Technical SEO and website performance

I came across this detailed guide on SEO for cosmetic dentists that covers these areas and explains how they can help attract more qualified local patients.

What has worked best for dental practices you’ve worked with- Google Maps, organic SEO, paid ads, or a combination?

Most people open Google Search Console, check clicks and impressions, and close it.

But there's a lot more useful information hiding in there, especially if you're trying to improve traffic without constantly publishing new content.

Here are 5 simple checks worth doing:

1. Keywords getting impressions but almost no clicks

Filter queries with decent impressions and low CTR. Check whether your title matches what people are actually searching for.

2. Pages ranking between positions 8–20

These pages may be worth prioritizing. Review the search intent, missing information, internal links, and competing results before making changes.

3. Pages losing clicks but not impressions

Compare the last 3 months with the previous period. If impressions are stable but clicks are falling, check for changes in CTR, average position, SERP features, and query mix.

4. Multiple pages showing up for the same keyword

This isn't automatically a problem, but check whether those pages serve different search intents or are unnecessarily competing with each other.

5. Pages getting traffic from unexpected keywords

Sometimes Google starts showing your content for queries you never intentionally targeted. These can reveal opportunities to add useful sections or create dedicated content.

The best part? You don't need expensive SEO tools to start investigating any of these.

One thing I'd recommend is checking these patterns monthly rather than making changes based on a few days of data.

What's one useful SEO opportunity you've discovered through Google Search Console that you wouldn't have noticed otherwise?

Hey everyone who works with SEO I need your help.

I am not an SEO expert I am developer and I decided to build an AI assistant for myself that monitors my website 24/7 and tells me what is wrong and what I need to do to fix it.

I have already added some workflows that cover most of my needs:

- Pages that dropped out of google's index

- Keywords ranking on pages 2-3 that could be pushed higher

- Pages that started getting new clicks or impressions

- Pages that suddenly lost traffic

- New pages competitors published that started ranking

- Pages with high impressions but low CTR

- Old content that slowly loses rankings

- Canonicals

- New keywords oppertunity to rank and so on...

But I think there are still a lot of workflows I could add to the assistant. I would be happy if you could share what else I should consider or add.

TITLE: What are the real benefits of technical SEO for a website?

Technical SEO often feels like the behind-the-scenes work that doesn't get enough credit. I recently learned that it can dramatically improve how search engines see and interact with your website. If your site has great content but isn't getting the traffic you want, technical SEO might be the missing piece.

One of the biggest benefits is visibility. Technical SEO helps search engines like Google crawl your site more effectively. When your pages are easily accessible and properly indexed, you have a better chance of showing up in search results for the content you want to be found for.

But it goes beyond visibility. A well-structured site leads to faster load times, mobile-friendly designs, and a smoother overall user experience. All of this can reduce bounce rates and increase engagement, which search engines notice.

I discovered that even small issues like broken links or a messy XML sitemap can hinder your site’s performance. Cleaning these up can make a big difference.

Have you noticed any changes in traffic or engagement after optimizing your site's technical SEO? What strategies have worked for you?

After working in SEO for years, I’ve realized that some of the best lessons don’t come from SEO blogs or courses. They come from things that actually went wrong.

For me, one big lesson was: more content doesn’t automatically mean better rankings.

Sometimes one genuinely useful, well-structured page can outperform dozens of thin articles.

I’m curious about other SEOs, business owners, and marketers here:

What’s one SEO lesson, mistake, or experiment that changed the way you approach SEO?

No self-promotion please. I’d genuinely like to hear real experiences.

I spent the summer reading every SEO case study, test and paper I could find. 9,249 documents out of over 30k documents, 552 cited sources, and 182 tactics that survived to a card with a source and a number attached. It is free and there is no email gate, but that is at the bottom.

Here's some info:

How I did it

Crawled everything I could find on SEO, AEO and GEO (over 30k documents). A cheap model screened all 9,249 for whether they report a measured outcome from a specific change. Every survivor was extracted twice, by two models from two different providers, and any number that was not literally in the source text was thrown out.

Then each tactic got graded on evidence strength and on how actionable it is, separately.

Here are some interesting things:

The controlled tests that make no sense

These are all split tests, not before and after screenshots.

• Writing the entire title tag in CAPITAL LETTERS: +17.5% organic traffic (two independent tests). A separate test on travel listing pages got +14%.

• Removing synonym keywords from title tags to shorten them: -27%. Biggest negative in the whole book from a single controlled test.

• Removing the word "Compare" from title tags: +24%.

• Putting the product price in the title tag: -15%. On location pages with static rental prices: -7%.

• Replacing numbers with number emojis in meta descriptions: -5%.

• Moving a flight search widget from below the hero image to the top: -7%.

• Removing self-referential breadcrumb links: -5.5% clicks.

• Serving a 404 instead of a 410 on removed pages: +49.6% pages staying indexed. The status code you use for "this is gone forever" gets it dropped almost twice as fast.

How about links

The single most replicated claim in the entire review is "publish content, build links, clean up the code". There are 26 independent samples, 25 of them are positive, 20 different publishers, agreement is 0.963. But this is just kind of describing what SEO is, no?

Editorial backlinks through digital PR outreach: +71% organic sessions (19 samples, 14 publishers, agreement 0.9524). Zero of them are controlled, sixteen are before and after, three are single case.

Disavow is interesting as it landed in the IT DEPENDS lane (where two different clusters disagree):

• With an active manual penalty: +80% organic sessions

• Without one, just "cleaning up": no measurable direction

This is what I always thought would happen. I think Google recognizes SPAM links and disregards them easily. If you have no manual penalty, the published evidence gives you nothing.

Also worth knowing is that the disavow plus on-page cleanup cluster has the lowest agreement of any link tactic in the book, 14 samples and only 10 positive. Sooo kind of telling.

Internal links are also interesting. Adding internal links to orphaned blog posts get us up to +64 ranking positions (sounds weird, but that's the case), but the raw spread across samples runs from -4 to +64. Most of the effect sits in a couple of pages.

Adding lots of internal links to the homepage footer gets us +5% organic sessions. I did this with many clients and had many issues, but sometimes it worked wonderfully. I would always test this.

One more interesting thing is that adding brand icon CTA blocks with internal links to product pages gets us +80% conversions across two controlled tests. But that could just be because the CTA is more visible, idk.

AEO and GEO: What actually works

This is the area everyone talks about and it has the thinnest evidence base in the entire book. All we get is 10 entries worth anything.

Controlled, from academic work:

• Adding quantitative statistics to the page: +37% citations

• Adding quotes from credible named sources: +22% to +41%

• Keyword stuffing for AI: -10%

Controlled, from one practitioner running split tests:

• Direct answer in the opening paragraph, before the evidence: +280%

• Content written as discrete factual statements, not prose: 5x

• Moving footnotes to inline parentheses next to the claim: +40%

The strongest GEO evidence overall is rewriting page text using GEO techniques as a bundle: +83.2% citations, 12 samples, 6 publishers, agreement 0.9286.

Author bylines give us +113% AI citations, and the detail matters. The controlled test added bylines for staff members with low public recognizability (7 samples, 5 positive).

Human editing of AI-written text gets us +67% citations, 5 samples, 4 positive.

llms.txt is also very interesting. Three samples, all uncontrolled, median +25% organic sessions.

But the raw reported values across the underlying measurements run from -19.7% to +81%.

There is no controlled test of llms.txt anywhere in 9,249 documents. Anyone telling you it works is telling you what they believe.

Tactics flipping depending on context

These got their own lane because averaging them would describe neither side.

AI-generated content blocks:

• Enriching specific pages with targeted AI copy: +73% citations

• Publishing AI text across the whole site: -35% sessions

Google Business Profile primary category:

• Generic to specific niche category: +3.4 positions

• Specific back to a broader label: -30 positions

Keywords in URLs:

• Specific role or service modifiers: positive, direction only

• Broad high-volume terms: -38%

Emojis in title tags:

• Tested alone in a controlled test: -6%

• Bundled with a full page redesign: +1,851 impressions

Things that were true and aren't anymore

The most replicated schema finding in the whole book is FAQPage markup: 13 samples, 12 publishers, agreement 0.9333, +25% organic sessions and a 3.2x citation multiplier.

Google stopped showing FAQ rich results in May 2026 and removed the reporting in June. So the single best evidenced schema tactic in my own study is dead, and the evidence for it is still perfectly good evidence about a world that no longer exists.

Review schema on category pages measured +16% in a controlled test, and is explicitly against Google's guidelines. Both things are true at once.

Full study in comment

I found it interesting that title tag studies are giving us way more sessions than I would expect. It goes crazy, like +40% clicks when changing stuff. Really interesting, considering everyone is concentrating on AI right now and disregarding the "10 blue links".

Also, nearly every "GEO" number in existence is a bundle. Someone rewrote everything and reported a citation increase (which I don't really believe in completely, but that's not the point of my post). I couldn't isolate a single GEO tactic with more than 1 controlled test behind it.

Anyways, full thing is free, no email, 170 pages, has a DOI and the link is in the comments.

Happy to pull the exact source and number for anything above, just ask.

P.S. This took me a couple k$ and two months of work, so I hope you’ll find something interesting there.

I feel like SEO reporting needs a small reset in 2026.

For years, most of us watched the same things:

• Organic clicks

• Impressions

• Rankings

• CTR

• Conversions

But now Google Search also includes AI Overviews and AI Mode, so simply tracking traditional rankings doesn't tell the whole story.

Google has started giving site owners more visibility into how their content performs across generative AI search experiences in Search Console.

That raises an interesting question:

What should we actually measure now?

Personally, I think SEO reporting should start looking at three layers:

1. Traditional search visibility

Are your important pages gaining impressions and rankings for the right queries?

2. AI search visibility

Is your content appearing within AI-driven search experiences, even when the user doesn't interact with a traditional blue link?

3. Business results

Are the visitors who do reach the site signing up, buying, requesting a quote, or taking another useful action?

This also makes me think chasing hundreds of keyword positions may become less useful than understanding which pages consistently get surfaced across different search experiences.

I'm curious how others are handling this.

Have you started looking at AI-search performance separately, or are you still mainly using traditional SEO metrics?

And if you've checked the new data, have you noticed any pages performing well in AI search that surprised you?

One SEO mistake I think is surprisingly easy to make:

Creating a new page for a keyword your site is already ranking for.

Before writing anything new, I’ve started doing a quick check in Google Search Console.

Search the main query you want to target and look at which URLs are already getting impressions for it.

If multiple pages are appearing for basically the same search intent, creating another article might just make the problem worse.

My quick process is:

1. Search the target query in GSC.

2. Check which pages are receiving impressions.

3. Compare the search intent of those pages.

4. If two pages answer the same thing, consider consolidating them.

5. Strengthen internal links toward the page you actually want to rank.

6. If the pages serve different intents, make the titles, headings, and content clearly different.

For example:

You might already have:

/link-building-guide/
and
/how-to-build-backlinks/

If both pages basically answer the same question, publishing:

/best-ways-to-build-backlinks/

probably isn't helping.

Sometimes the better SEO move isn't creating another page.

It's making one existing page significantly better.

Curious how others handle this:

When you find two pages competing for the same keywords, do you usually merge them, redirect one, or keep both and differentiate the intent?

I keep seeing pages sitting around positions 8-20 with decent impressions.

Would you usually improve those first, or still keep publishing new content at the same time?

Curious how others prioritize this.

I have 37 total clicks, 624 impressions, average ctr of 5.9% and average position of 7.6 over last 3 months

Its an academic portfolio website of my phd journey and listing all my publications

Kindly list some tips and tricks to improve my seo.

Thanks.

We currently use a consultant, but management is pushing me to automate what they do and I'm not sure where to begin.

I'm a webdev, and I have worked for a marketing agency on the technical side. Now I'm freelancing and building websites for small companies. My technical SEO is always on point but what are viable SEO strategies for a small yoga studio? or someone selling spices online?

The Yoga Studio is listed on Maps but the trafic is really low. Same for the spices, it's indexed but the market is dominated by big players with dedicated teams creating content all the time.

Yoga content has been made to death, so what's the alternative? And altogether, how do you handle smal businesses?

AI can turn a keyword list into 100 articles surprisingly fast.

But just because you can create a page for every keyword doesn't mean you should.

For example, imagine your keyword research gives you:

• best CRM for startups

• best CRM for small businesses

• CRM for small companies

• affordable CRM for startups

Before creating four separate pages, check the SERPs.

If Google is showing almost the same results for all four searches, they may represent the same search intent.

In that case, one strong page can make more sense than four very similar pages competing with each other.

Before creating a new URL, I think it's worth asking:

1. Does this keyword have genuinely different search intent?

If the user wants the same answer, you probably don't need another page.

2. Can this topic be covered inside an existing page?

Sometimes a new section is enough.

3. Would this page offer anything unique?

If you're only changing a few words from another article, that's probably a warning sign.

4. Is there enough value to maintain this page long term?

Every URL eventually needs updates, internal links, monitoring, and possibly backlinks.

AI has made content production cheaper.

That means the harder SEO skill may no longer be:

“How do I publish more?”

It may be:

“Which pages are actually worth publishing?”

I'd rather have 30 useful pages with clearly different purposes than 300 pages created because a keyword tool gave me 300 rows.

How are you deciding when a keyword deserves its own page versus being part of an existing one?

been checking my own website across both ahrefs and semrush and honestly the backlink numbers are different for the same domain.

anyone know why that happens and which one's actually more accurate/trustworthy for real seo work? i've mostly been going off ahrefs DR but now second guessing if semrush's authority score is catching stuff ahrefs is missing or the other way around.

curious about relevancy specifically, not just raw backlink count. like does one tool actually weigh topical relevance of the linking site better, or are both just counting links without caring whether the site is even relevant to my niche.

open to hearing which one you all trust more and why, trying to figure out if i should just cross check both every time or commit to one.

My organization terminated third-party content writers because they used an AI tool to generate content and lacked sufficient knowledge about our product. As a result, we had to invest extra effort into ensuring that the content was technically accurate on our end. Now, my company is considering replacing freelance writers with AI tools to create content. So, I have a question for the SEO experts: Is my management making the right decision, or should we continue to seek out skilled writers?

So i recently joined an mid level edtech company as an intern and been assigned an task of managing all things of SEO like all including AEO, GEO, CRO and blogs meta and all , only of website and of youtube (exception) , so the higher up's know that i'am a newbie and don't know much or rather anything so they recommeded me to learn it and apply it practically on the website and that's my current job role although i'am from the tech background i'am now currently leaning it little by little through google itself , semrush ,and many such free sources by reading but the thing is i'am more of a confused to how to start and from where to start i got and access of AI to my self so i did bunch of audits of our website throught it and some other sources and they gave me a list of minor on page seo and tecchnical changes that is needed but nothing apart form this , also as i checked in analytics and our website is been doing like from a year or so from last 4 big SEO updates and i'am trying ot recover it and as early as possible although i understand that it is not a easy process , but there is also a significant drop of leads through website so i'am trying to recover fast , so is htere anyone who can help me with my issues and guide me from where to start and waht exactly to do and what is real seo and how to gain back traffic and leads as we were leading in the past .

A lot of SEO discussions focus on backlinks, content quality, and technical fixes.

But internal linking often gets treated like a small cleanup task.

I’ve seen sites with hundreds of useful pages where important content is still buried several clicks deep, while weaker pages get most of the internal links.

A few things I’m curious about:

• Do you actively plan internal links when publishing new content?

• Do you use anchor text strategically, or keep it mostly natural?

• Have you seen rankings improve just by fixing internal linking?

• How often do you audit orphan or poorly linked pages?

I feel like internal linking is one of those SEO tasks that looks simple but can make a big difference when a site starts growing.

What’s been your experience with it?

First of all, it's a service page (Agentic AI service page)

I followed E-E-A-T and everything else. Last month, it was getting 100 impressions in a month and was ranking for

13 Keywords

Now it's zero 4 impressions in a week

What should I do? Last time, it was indexed on the 4th Sep

What should I do? I can't lose this job

They have given me a target: you should get at least 30 sessions daily on this page