As I immerse myself in Google’s latest guidance on AI search optimization, it’s hard not to approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Whenever Google releases a new Search Central document, our industry splits into two predictable groups. The first group eagerly screenshots the content to share on LinkedIn, captioning it with “SEE? IT’S JUST SEO” before returning to their usual practices. In contrast, the second camp underscores their posts with, “Here’s proof they’re deceiving us,” treating Google’s words as gospel as long as it supports their pre-existing beliefs.
Recently, Google updated its guide on optimizing websites for generative AI features. The “it’s just SEO” advocates had much to celebrate. Many emerging concepts were downplayed or outright dismissed by the guide, reinforcing their belief that not much has changed over the years.
Yet, I can’t help but recall the critical insight we gained a couple of years back from leaked internal documents. Those leaked papers revealed discrepancies between Google’s public messages and what their internal documentation actually detailed. Despite public denials, these documents showed certain signals were very much a part of Google’s algorithms. This reinforces the need for caution in taking Google’s public directions at face value.
I’m not suggesting everything in Google’s new guidance is misleading, but it’s important to note Google’s tendency to push the industry towards its own interests first, possibly benefitting the open web as an afterthought. Google’s narrative drives SEOs to maintain the web’s infrastructure rather than moving towards a more independent approach across diverse platforms.
In my previous discussions about chunking, I’ve highlighted how Google’s influence is waning, as competitive AI platforms redirect user attention. Google’s once-dominant definition of “good content” is now challenged, as evident in their increasingly protective language.
Meanwhile, over at Microsoft, Bing is taking a different approach, transparent about changes and offering publishers insights and tools to optimize their content’s performance in AI responses.
For instance, in their posts, Bing describes the transition towards Generative Engine Optimization and provides practical tools for users, something Google hasn’t quite matched.
So, let’s discuss Google’s claims point by point:
“Is SEO still relevant for generative AI search?”
The idea that “it’s just SEO” is overly simplistic. SEO encompasses more than a collection of tactics; it includes strategic thinking and organizational presence. SEO has been evolving beyond basic practices to influence broader content strategies, yet it is often still underestimated as a supportive task.
This pattern has persisted across various developments, from mobile and voice search to schema and AMP, all initially labeled as merely “SEO.” Each innovation triggers more work for SEO professionals without an equivalent increase in resources.
The skill set and audience have diversified. Traditional SEO targets machine and human users differently than AI Search, which also caters to systems that might bypass traditional site visits altogether.
New labels, like AEO and GEO, can prioritize budgets and attention towards such progressive approaches, unlike the catch-all label of SEO.
When AI Search is recognized distinctly within organizations, it can catalyze cross-functional collaboration and sponsorships that SEOs have long sought.
Despite the extra responsibility placed on practitioners, aligning AI Search under the SEO umbrella usually doesn’t come with new resources or authority, which limits growth and innovation.
Google’s approach, treating all work as “just SEO” rather than recognizing unique systems like AI Mode or AI Overviews, simplifies the real diversity within their technologies.
Non-commodity content is key. Creating valuable and unique content is universally acknowledged as a good practice.
llms.txt files are beneficial, even if Google doesn’t require them. They serve other systems and therefore should be considered in a broad strategy.
Ignoring the multi-platform dynamics leaves a business vulnerable to losing ground where other systems are gaining traction.
Understanding that Google’s public guidance is tailored to its interests rather than offering generalized best practices across all platforms is crucial for developing a robust SEO strategy in this new era.
Google’s recommendations are one perspective in a rapidly evolving landscape where multiple opinions and infrastructures are emerging.
Stay informed, apply what’s relevant, but don’t take any single source as absolute truth. We’re navigating a new world requiring attention to diverse strategies to succeed across platforms.
First published on the iPullRank blog, republished here with permission.
Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
