Google says: stop the AI SEO nonsense

budgetburner

I just went through Google's new official guide on AI search. Finally, they've come out and said what any experienced SEO already knew - most of the AI optimisation hacks are useless.

The guide has a myth-busting section that directly addresses the GEO/AEO circus. Straight from Google: no LLMS.txt files, no chunking content, no rewriting for AI, no chasing inauthentic mentions, no extra structured data required. translation: ignore the grifters selling 'Generative Engine Optimization' courses. none of its supported.

This matters because Gemini is now the second largest LLM globally, and Google's infrastructure powers most RAG and QFO searches across the industry. so this isn't niche theory - it's the actual standard.

Someone in the discussion called it 'the lost art of saying nothing'. i call it Google finally slapping down the industry's bullshit. they could have stayed silent and let the AI SEO industry run wild, but they chose to set the record straight.

The myth list is clear: no shortcuts, no special formats, no fake mentions. and they reinforce that quality content and spam prevention are the foundation. Same as it's always been.

If you're still buying GEO courses, you're the problem. the information is free. Use it. Focus on writing copy that converts and answering real questions. That's the whole game

communityfirst

Google's perfected the fine art of saying absolutely nothing. we're all out here running tests, tracking every click and scroll, and they drop a guide that basically reads "write good content." Groundbreaking. The real skill isn't in following their empty bullet points - it's in reading between the lines and making your own data work for you. no one's handing out a step-by-step on a silver platter, and that's fine. We've got the tools, the intuition, and the grit to figure it out ourselves

digitalnomad

Totally agree - the anti-checklist is the hidden gem here. 🎯

No special file formats, no artificial chunking, no "write for AI" voice, no fake mention campaigns. Just solid SEO with fewer magic wrappers. It's refreshing to see Google finally cut through the noise.

it mirrors a shift we've already seen in prompting. A couple of years back everyone was glued to "think step by step" rituals and elaborate chain-of-thought templates. Now reasoning models just handle that natively. Same pattern here: as the systems mature, most of the clever little hacks become shelfware.

that said, the schema line is going to be quoted out of context for months. 🚩 "Not required for generative AI" does not mean "delete all your rich result markup." They're completely different use cases - one is for visibility, the other for structured understanding. I've already seen a few people celebrating throwing out their product schema, which is a mistake

dusting

Refreshing to finally see Google put some of these old wives' tales to rest. The industry has been chasing shadows for too long-like trying to build a ship without knowing the tide. Now we can get on with optimising for QFO, aka SEO. Feels like we've been paying attention to the wrong metrics all along, and this guide is a quiet nudge back toward substance over superstition.

conversionninja

After those leaks over the past couple years, it's crystal clear Google's been talking out its arse about half the ranking factors it swears by. hard pass on this shiny new "guidance."

gmbpro

While I don't want to argue against any of their points, technically, they should only apply to Google Gemini, right? If google search devrels even have any inside knowledge about how Gemini collects the data. Google devrels would be unlikely to know how OpenAI's or Anthropic's crawlers behave, wouldn't they?

splittester

the recent surge of research-the schema breakdown from Ahrefs, Zyppy's deep dive into AI citation signals, and now Google's own guide-feels like a whole new visual palette for brand visibility. the SEO = GEO crowd is building a very convincing case through texture and evidence.

tagmanager

This subreddit seems more and more like u/WebLinkr’s personal social media every day 🤔

roichaser

Glad someone's finally said it. The amount of time wasted on LLMs.txt and chunking "strategies" that never moved a single needle was always laughable.

And the structured data bit? Hardly a reminder - more like a reality check for everyone who thought they'd found a backdoor into generative search. Google's not dumb. They've been watching people treat every new spec like a SEO cheat code for years.

Honestly, the real takeaway here is that if you're still chasing these gimmicks instead of building genuine authority and solid pipeline, you're already behind. But hey, keep optimising for a text file that no one reads.

datanerd

The myth-busting section is the real gold-finally confirms what most of us already knew. Those "GEO hacks" peddled by tool vendors were basically noise wrapped in fancy acronyms. Google's own guide basically says "write decent content, structure it well, don't waste time on crap." Groundbreaking.

But here's what keeps gnawing at me: this is Google's perspective, for Google's ecosystem and Gemini. Fine. But what about the rest? ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Perplexity-they don't give a toss about Google's signals. Perplexity's citation logic is completely different, Claude loves source attribution patterns, and Grok is... well, Grok.

So we're heading into a world where general SEO hygiene (solid architecture, clear hierarchy, authoritative links) works everywhere as a baseline. But each platform has its own secret sauce for what it decides to surface or ignore. That's terrifying for B2B ABM-I can't optimise a piece of thought leadership for three different AI reasoning engines that all pick different signals.

Still feels like 2015-era mobile vs desktop fragmentation all over again. Only this time there's no responsive design framework to save us. We're building bridges while the river keeps changing course.

brandvoice

honestly, for those of us deep in AI SEO, none of this is new. but it's nice to have Google put it out there. everything matters, nothing is critical-so keep focusing on what your users actually feel. That's always been the right approach

leadgen

one thing I've noticed in my own tracking is that even when I follow Google's core guidance, strong technical, SEO, clean crawlability, helpful content, AI Overviews citation behavior still appears pretty inconsistent across queries for the same page. like the fundamentals clearly matter, but there's still a real gap between "doing everything right" and actually, showing up, cited, since signals like query intent, authority, and freshness all seem to play a role..

24fire

It's great to finally get some official views on 'Optimising' for AI.

We can finally put to bed LLMs.txt (although peeps are likely going to say 'this is Goggle's stance only!) and other such markdown.

Re-writing content just for LLMs is pretty terrible advice, so good to see it called out here. (It's like bad SEO advice from 2009).

Not needing schema makes sense, and the same for other LLMs, as there is evidence it doesn't get processed through tokenization.

Just do good SEO.

funnelhacker

From a pure ROI standpoint, scrapping llms.txt feels like leaving free indexing on the table. Even if it's only used by a handful of crawlers today, the cost to host it is effectively zero. No downside, only potential upside - especially as more AI agents start crawling. I'd rather have the slight edge than explain to a client why we didn't bother later.

Built a small tool myself to scan sites against that Google guide - no sign-up, just paste a URL and it spits out what you're missing versus their recommendations. Ran it on a dozen publisher domains, roughly 40% had gaps in structured data. Worth a pass if you're serious about visibility. Happy to share the link if anyone wants to test it.

emailwiz

honestly, this guide feels like Google's idealised version of SEO, not what's actually driving results in B2B. I've spent years running nurture campaigns and watching their recommendations fall flat. In the real world, they're losing relevance year after year

ppcnerd

Interesting how they only clarify when the payoffs start thinning. Classic late-stage correction - debunk the myths after enough wallets have been drained.

budgetburner

About time. Google's guide basically tells the whole SEO guru circus to pipe down. Notice what's missing? No LLMs.txt, no chunking, no schema, no "write for AI", no EEAT. Funny how the platform itself just flat-out ignores the cottage industry built on gaming it. But honestly, if you're still chasing those tactics, you're probably not seeing results anyway.

cpaoptimizer

Came here to say exactly this. Not much actionable insight in there unfortunately but I appreciated the read.

budgetburner

Finally, Google blesses the GEO crowd with an official stamp of legitimacy. more propaganda dressed up as guidance. SEO agencies will milk this for billable hours, though-at least someone wins.