Tag: AEO

  • People Also Ask Is Basically All AI Overviews Now

    People Also Ask Is Basically All AI Overviews Now

    Is “People Also Ask” still worth targeting? Not in its old form. The PAA box that used to quote a tidy FAQ answer is now almost entirely AI-generated, and most of those answers don’t link back to a source page at all. The real target now is getting named as the source inside an AI Overview — a different, harder bar GrowthAgents calls Citation Share.

    What Happened To People Also Ask?

    For years, PAA was the realistic entry point for small firms. Write a clean, specific FAQ answer, format it well, and Google’s algorithm might quote it directly in the expandable box under a search result. No huge domain authority required. Just a well-structured answer to a real question.

    That mechanism has largely been replaced. PAA questions still appear, but the answers underneath them are increasingly generated by Google’s AI rather than pulled and quoted from a specific page.

    How Fast Did This Change?

    The shift happened faster than most firms have noticed. Analysis of 19.2 million English-language PAA results by Mark Williams-Cook found that AI Overviews accounted for roughly 12% of PAA answers about 14 months earlier.

    By August 2026, that number had jumped to 86%. Separate data from Saeed Khosravi’s Also Ask Miner shows PAA became fully AI-generated starting that same month. One week into September 2026, the figure hit 97%.

    Google’s own October 2026 webmaster report, published October 1, confirmed what the third-party data was already showing: PAA answers are now “almost 100%” AI Overviews.

    Why Does This Matter For Small Firms?

    PAA used to be a lower-competition lane. A firm without a big content team could still win a question box by answering one question clearly. That lane hasn’t closed — it’s changed shape.

    An AI Overview doesn’t quote a page the way the old PAA box did. It synthesizes an answer and sometimes credits a source, sometimes several, sometimes none. Getting credited now depends on whether your page reads as the most specific, well-structured answer available — not whether it’s formatted for a snippet box that barely functions the old way anymore.

    What’s The New Win Condition?

    Call it Citation Share: the rate at which your firm’s pages get named as a source when an AI model answers a question in your practice area. It’s a harder bar than old PAA, because it rewards precision and authority over formatting tricks.

    Three things tend to separate pages that earn citations from pages that don’t:

    • A direct, specific answer in the first sentence or two — no throat-clearing before the substance.
    • Structured, scannable content: clear questions as headings, concise answers underneath.
    • Enough specificity (jurisdiction, process step, timeline) that the answer can’t be mistaken for a generic restatement of the question.

    How Do You Write For Citation Share Instead Of PAA?

    Keep writing FAQ-style content. Don’t keep judging it by the old standard. Before publishing, ask whether an AI model summarizing your practice area would plausibly pick your page as the source — not whether it fits a snippet box that increasingly doesn’t exist in its old form.

    Is PAA completely gone?

    The questions still show up. What’s gone is the old mechanism where a quoted answer from a specific page filled the box. That answer is now almost always AI-generated.

    Should firms stop writing FAQ content?

    No. FAQ content is still the right format for the questions clients actually ask. The bar for what counts as a winning answer has moved — write for citation, not for a snippet box.

    How would a firm know if this is working?

    Watch search-console metrics for your FAQ and practice-area pages — impressions, clicks, and ranking position for the questions you’re answering. That’s the evidence available to track.

    Is this legal advice?

    No, this is informational commentary, not legal advice.

    Curious whether your firm’s FAQ pages are built to earn citations under the new rules? Run a free check at GrowthAgents SiteScan and see where your site stands.

  • Google AI Mode Cut Citation Links by 82 Percent

    Google AI Mode Cut Citation Links by 82 Percent

    Google’s AI Mode now includes 82 percent fewer source links than it did three weeks earlier, according to a study Evertune published on September 23, 2026. The drop started before Google’s own explanation for it did. For a small law firm, the lesson isn’t to chase fewer links harder, it’s to stop counting on links at all.

    What did Evertune’s study actually find?

    Evertune tracked AI Mode responses from August 11 to September 3, 2026. In that window, the average response went from 19.7 citation URLs plus 5.0 plain links, about 24.7 sources total, down to just 3.8 sources. The share of responses that included any plain citation link fell from 84 percent down to 6 percent. That’s not a tweak. That’s a channel closing.

    Where do the surviving links actually send people?

    Here’s the part that matters more than the headline number. Of the few sources AI Mode still shows, 3.5 out of 3.8 are google.com/goto redirect links, not direct links to the original site. Even when a firm gets cited, the click doesn’t go straight to the firm’s website. It goes to Google first.

    Is Google’s bug explanation the real story?

    Google has publicly attributed the citation drop to a Gemini 3.8 Flash model bug. Evertune’s own timeline raises a fair question about that. The decline started in mid-August, three weeks before the bug explanation surfaced, and it lines up almost exactly with Google’s late-August rollout of goto redirect wrappers around search result links. A bug is possible. So is a redesign that quietly reduced outbound links and got a convenient explanation after the fact. We’d want more transparency before taking Google’s account at face value.

    How does AI Mode compare to Gemini and AI Overviews?

    The severity is specific to AI Mode. Over the same three weeks, Gemini’s citation count fell about 30 percent, and Google’s AI Overviews fell about 15 percent. Both declined. Neither came close to AI Mode’s 82 percent collapse. If this were purely a model bug, you’d expect a more uniform drop across Google’s own AI products. The gap suggests AI Mode’s product changes, not a shared model issue, are doing most of the work.

    What should a small law firm take from this?

    Evertune’s own recommendation is the useful part here: stop counting outbound links from AI answers, and start tracking whether your firm gets named inside the answer text itself. A link was never a guaranteed click. Now it’s a shrinking, Google-controlled funnel that mostly routes through Google’s own redirect anyway. Being named directly in an AI’s answer doesn’t depend on whether Google decides to show a link that day.

    • Track citation and mention rates over time, not a single snapshot.
    • Make sure AI crawlers can actually access and read your site’s content.
    • Prioritize being recommended and named by the AI’s own words over counting outbound clicks.

    This is exactly why we talk about Citation Share: how often AI assistants name a firm by name in their answers, not how many links trickle through to a website. If AI Mode’s own link count can fall 82 percent in three weeks, any strategy built on counting those links was never stable ground to build on.

    FAQ

    What is Citation Share?

    Citation Share is the percentage of AI-assistant answers in a firm’s market that name the firm directly, with or without a clickable link attached.

    Does this affect my firm’s Google rankings?

    Evertune’s study covers AI Mode’s citation behavior, not traditional organic rankings. If you want a read on your own site’s traffic, impressions, and ranking positions, that’s a separate, search-console-level check.

    Is this article legal advice?

    No. This is informational marketing commentary based on a published third-party study, not legal advice for your firm or jurisdiction.

    Want a baseline read on your own site before you decide what to fix? Run it through the free SiteScan tool, it grades your site across five pages and rewrites your weakest one with a before-and-after score.

  • Is Your Agency Selling Rebranded SEO as GEO? 7 Questions

    Is Your Agency Selling Rebranded SEO as GEO? 7 Questions

    Is your agency’s “AI search” pitch just SEO with a new coat of paint?

    Some agencies now sell “GEO” or “AEO” as a new service line, but the work underneath hasn’t changed. Law firm marketers at recent conferences report hearing AI search mentioned in every meeting while nothing in the actual deliverables shifts. Here are seven questions that separate real work from a relabeled invoice.

    This matters because GEO work is harder to audit than traditional SEO. A keyword ranking is a number anyone can check in five minutes. An AI assistant’s answer changes by the hour, varies by region, and differs between ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI Overviews. That makes it easy for an agency to describe activity instead of outcomes — and easy for a managing partner to not know the difference until the invoice arrives.

    Why this question matters right now

    Consumer research behavior is moving fast. A July 2026 survey of 1,110 U.S. consumers found Google usage for researching attorneys fell from 86.7% to 71.9% in a single year, while ChatGPT usage climbed from 28.1% to 41.9% (iLawyer Marketing, 2026). At the same time, a separate analysis of law firm website traffic found AI referrals averaging just 0.47% of sessions (LawFuel, Sept 2026). Translation: consumers are asking AI assistants about attorneys more than ever, but most firms can’t yet see it in their own analytics. That gap is exactly where a relabeled SEO pitch hides. One industry breakdown put it plainly: some agencies talk about AI search “in every meeting” while “nothing they’re actually doing has changed” (MeasureMarketing, 2026).

    7 questions to ask on your next agency call

    1. Which exact prompts do you track, and across which AI assistants?

    Real answer: a named list of prompts tied to your practice areas, tracked across more than one assistant (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, etc.), reviewed with you.
    Dodge: “We monitor your AI visibility” with no prompt list and no named engines.

    2. How many runs per prompt, and how often?

    Real answer: a stated run frequency and count — AI answers vary run to run, so one-off checks are noise.
    Dodge: “We checked and you showed up” — a single snapshot presented as a result.

    3. Do you report brand mentions and linked citations separately?

    Real answer: two distinct numbers — how often your firm is mentioned by name, and how often a response links to your site. This is the idea behind what we call Citation Share: mentions and citations never get blended into one inflated figure.
    Dodge: a single combined “AI visibility score” that hides which number is actually moving.

    4. What changed in our actual content because of this work?

    Real answer: specific pages rewritten, specific structural changes made — not just a new report format.
    Dodge: a shinier dashboard covering the same unchanged pages.

    5. How do you structure pages differently for AI extraction versus classic SEO?

    Real answer: a concrete explanation — direct-answer structure near the top, clear headings, extractable facts — distinct from keyword-density tactics.
    Dodge: “We optimize for both” with no description of what’s actually different on the page.

    6. What’s your plan when an AI engine’s behavior changes?

    Real answer: an acknowledgment that engines update constantly and a stated process for re-checking and adjusting.
    Dodge: silence, or an assumption that today’s approach works forever.

    7. Can you show one provable before/after example?

    Real answer: one specific page, one specific prompt, a documented change over time.
    Dodge: vague claims about “overall improvement” with nothing you can verify yourself.

    FAQ

    Is GEO the same thing as SEO?

    No. Classic SEO targets search engine rankings; GEO (generative engine optimization) targets how AI assistants summarize and cite your firm in conversational answers. They overlap but aren’t identical.

    Why don’t AI referrals show up much in my analytics yet?

    Research suggests AI-driven research is rising fast, but much of it doesn’t generate a trackable website click — someone asks an assistant, gets an answer, and calls the firm directly. That’s part of why relying on referral traffic alone to judge an agency’s GEO work is misleading.

    What should I ask for in writing?

    The specific prompts tracked, the engines covered, and separate mention/citation numbers — not a single blended score.

    Not sure if your current agency’s GEO work is real? Run your site through our free SiteScan — it grades your site across five pages and rewrites the weakest one, so you can check their claims against an independent read of your own site.