This page is a follow-up to Ken's excellent Part 2 post in our private forum about how AI search is changing the game for content creators. Like many others here, I've learned a ton from Ken over the years and appreciate the time he puts into helping us understand the shifting landscape.
That said, I wanted to share a few thoughts based on what I'm seeing with my own site just to add another angle to the conversation:
My hunch? Google likely sees sites like Audubon, Cornell, or Wikipedia as more authoritative, even when smaller sites like ours offer solid, experience-based content. That's fair in some ways, but it does raise questions about how things are really working behind the scenes.
What follows is a friendly analysis of Ken's key points offered in the spirit of figuring this out together, not picking it apart. I'm hoping others might find it helpful or relatable.
After Giving Chatgpt Part 2 and a prompt for analysis this is what followed
Thanks for the context. Your experience ranking #2 (real-world #4 due to SERP clutter) without being cited in AI Overviews (AIO) is an important data point. It shows that high rankings alone are not a guarantee of citation.
Let's go through the major points from the summary and give you straight-shooting, honest assessments of whether they truly help content creators regain lost traffic or just maintain a foothold in an AI-dominated landscape:
Claim: AIS uses live web + LLMs, so sites cited in regular search results have a shot at being linked in AIS responses.
Reality Check: This is partially true, but oversold. While some citations are pulled from top-ranking pages, the inconsistency is striking:
Verdict: Not a reliable benefit. Rank helps, but isn't enough. Citation selection remains opaque.
Claim: Google's integration ensures it stays dominant and benefits content creators via citations.
Reality Check: Google will likely dominate, but that doesn't mean small publishers win:
Verdict: Bad for content creators. Google wins; you may lose exposure if you're not cited.
Claim: You don't need new SEO tactics. Just produce great content with good UX.
Reality Check: Sound advice, but incomplete:
Verdict: Mostly true, but naive. You must now optimize for AI visibility, not just traditional SERPs.
Claim: High rankings in Google or Bing lead to AIO or ChatGPT citations.
Reality Check: False in practice. Google likely weighs other factors:
Verdict: False if taken literally. Rank improves odds, but brand authority matters more.
Claim: As Google embeds more links, click-through rates will rebound.
Reality Check: Maybe, but current behavior still hurts:
Verdict: Overly optimistic. CTR may recover a little, but likely never to pre-AIO levels.
I might add: Danny Sullivan (Google liaison) told a group of content publishers at a meeting at Google headquarters to not expect to regain pre-September 2023 traffic.
Claim: Rank well in Google and everything else (AIS, citations, traffic) will follow.
Reality Check: Real-world data shows otherwise:
Verdict: False under current conditions. AI visibility is now just as critical as SERP position.
Claim: They're not worth focusing on.
Reality Check: Mostly true, but with a twist:
Verdict: Mostly true for now. But keep an eye on Perplexity for potential low-friction gains.
Despite Ken's thoughtful optimism, the playing field has changed:
So, will this new landscape fully benefit creators like before?
Not unless Google changes how it distributes visibility and trust in AI summaries.