SEO And Growth Articles

263 companies are watching you watch your TV. Did you notice?

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:01:57 GMT

Most of us have developed a reflex: privacy policy appears, thumb moves to "Accept", life continues. We do it on websites, apps, and now, apparently, televisions. But recently, while setting up a new Samsung TV, something stopped that reflex in its tracks. The list of "partners" the TV intended to share data with was 263 companies long. In the video I know I said 400, but still, 263 is far hight than I was expecting

That moment of "privacy shock" — feeling invaded in your own living room — is worth unpacking properly. Because the real issue isn't whether you clicked accept. It's whether any of us genuinely understand what we're accepting, why it exists, and whether our collective response to it is calibrated correctly.

So what actually is a cookie?

Cookies started life as a genuinely useful piece of web plumbing. In 1994, Netscape engineer Lou Montulli invented them to solve a basic problem: websites had no memory. Every page load was a blank slate. Cookies gave sites a way to remember you — your shopping cart, your login, your preferences.

A cookie is simply a small text file. A website writes it to your browser; your browser sends it back every time you return to that site. That's it. At their most innocent, they're the reason you don't have to log back into Gmail every twenty minutes.

The complication comes in two flavours. First-party cookies are set by the site you're actually visiting and are broadly benign. Third-party cookies are set by someone else — an advertiser, an analytics provider, a social media widget — embedded on that page. These can follow you across the internet, building a profile of your behaviour across hundreds of sites you've never consciously engaged with.

On a smart TV, there are no traditional cookies — but the principle is identical. Your viewing habits, your app usage, the content you pause, rewind, or abandon — all of it becomes data. And that data travels.

The four types of cookie (in plain language)

Strictly necessary

Keeps you logged in. Remembers your basket. Non-negotiable for a working site.

Functional

Saves your preferences — language, region, layout. Useful, low-risk.

Analytics

Tells the site owner how pages are used. Can be anonymised — often isn't.

Advertising / targeting

Builds a profile of you. Shares it. Follows you around the web. This is the one.

Are we panicking about the wrong thing?

Here's the honest tension: most people are simultaneously over-informed and under-informed about cookies. They know they exist, they've been conditioned to feel vaguely threatened by banners, and they've developed coping strategies — clicking accept as fast as possible to make the banner disappear. That's not privacy-conscious behaviour. That's banner fatigue wearing a privacy-conscious costume.

The genuine concern isn't that a website knows you visited it twice this week. It's the aggregation: dozens of data brokers combining your TV viewing, your web browsing, your location data, your purchase history, and your search behaviour into a single commercial profile that you never consented to and can't easily inspect.

Meanwhile, real risks go unnoticed. People use the same password everywhere, click phishing links in emails, and connect to public Wi-Fi without a VPN — yet feel virtuous about occasionally clicking "reject all" on a cookie banner.

The 400-partner list on a Samsung TV is extreme, but it's a useful data point. It illustrates that the modern "consent" model is largely theatrical. No one is reading 400 partner policies. The consent architecture is designed to be accepted, not interrogated. GDPR tried to address this; the results have been mixed at best.

What can you actually do?

On smart TVs specifically: dig into the privacy settings menu rather than accepting the onboarding prompt. Most Samsung and LG TVs have an "interest-based advertising" toggle buried several menus deep — turn it off. Disable ACR (Automatic Content Recognition) if you can find the setting; this is the technology that monitors what you're watching in real time.

On the web: a browser extension like uBlock Origin blocks the trackers that cookie banners are trying to legitimise. Choosing "reject all" on cookie banners, where that option is clearly presented, takes thirty seconds and meaningfully reduces your third-party data trail.

More broadly: understand the difference between the data you're comfortable sharing (anonymous usage stats, session preferences) and the data that builds a profile of you (cross-site behavioural tracking, location, purchase intent). Make decisions at that level, not at the level of individual banners.

The bottom line

Cookies aren't the villain — uncontrolled data aggregation is. The cookie banner arms race has produced a generation of users who are annoyed by privacy warnings without being protected by them.

Feeling invaded in your living room because your TV is sharing data with 400 companies is a reasonable response. The useful next step is channelling that reaction into understanding the specific mechanisms involved — and adjusting the settings you actually can control, rather than accepting everything in exhausted resignation.

The smart TV in your living room is, in a very practical sense, a data collection device that also happens to play Netflix. Knowing that changes how you configure it.

Google CTRs - the AI Race and the Organic Traffic Price

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 16:13:28 GMT

Google, the AI Race and the Organic Traffic Price

Everyone has been saying it for long enough, Google isn’t sending traffic unless it has to, or you pay for it, Sistrix has published some research in German (Google translate for the win) others have published similar. A couple of my clients, particularly travel and education have seen some crazy CTRs from top results as a result of AI overviews.

The headline finding is stark: when a Google AI Overview appears in search results, clicks to the top organic result fall by almost 60%, this is huge, especially if you aren’t in the top one or two spots. Websites that have spent years and in many cases, millions building authoritative, high-quality content, sharing it with Google in return for traffic, I know that many argue that traffic isn’t the KPI that many businesses should be tracking, however the creation of high quality travel guides that are freely accessible and shareable leads to brand exposure, this brand exposure leads to brand preference, trust and ultimately revenue, so high quality content could be attributed to to revenue

Google is taking the answer and giving the user just enough attribution to call it fair, a source link, a small citation, barely noticeable beneath a comprehensive AI-generated summary of the content your team crafted.

Google Is Now Winning the AI Race - By a Significant Margin

To understand why organic CTR is falling so sharply, you first need to understand the broader strategic context. In December 2022, Google famously declared internal 'Code Red' when ChatGPT launched and appeared to threaten its search dominance. Three years on, the situation has almost entirely reversed.

According to analysis by SISTRIX's Johannes Beus, it is now OpenAI facing its own internal alarms as ChatGPT's growth stagnates while infrastructure costs balloon, with projections suggesting the company will need up to $111 billion by 2030 to sustain its operations. Meanwhile, Google's Gemini platform tripled its web traffic in the second half of 2025, and AI Overviews now reach over two billion monthly users globally.

Google's advantages are structural and, at this point, likely insurmountable for any challenger. They can be grouped into three areas:

Access : AI Overviews are baked into the standard search experience. There is nothing to install, no new habit to form. Google meets users exactly where they already are, and one click to AI mode.
Economics : Google's proprietary TPU chips operate at near-manufacturing cost and are significantly more energy-efficient than the NVIDIA GPUs OpenAI relies on creating an estimated three-to-five times cost advantage.
Integration : Gemini is natively embedded within Gmail, Docs, Sheets, YouTube, Maps and Calendar, plus locked in as the AI backbone for Apple Intelligence and Siri. This ecosystem reach is essentially impossible to replicate from a standing start.

For SEOs and content teams, the lesson from this competitive picture is uncomfortable: the question of whether Google or its challengers wins the discoverability AI race is almost settled. What is not settled is what Google's dominance means for the publishers, brands, and content creators who have built their digital presence in Google's ecosystem. And here, the data is unambiguous.

The Click-Through Rate Collapse: What the Numbers Actually Say

SISTRIX analysed over 100 million keywords in Germany to produce what is currently one of the most comprehensive studies of AI Overview impact on organic search behaviour. While Germany is the primary dataset, the structural forces at play are not market-specific they are intrinsic to how AI Overviews function, and findings are being replicated in every market where the feature has rolled out.

Here are the core findings:

AI Overviews appear on approximately 20% of all keywords in Germany, with the rate rising to around 30% for longer, more conversational queries.
Nearly 79% of AI Overviews are positioned above the first organic result meaning they are the first thing users see.
On searches where an AI Overview appears, the click-through rate for Position 1 drops from an average of 27% to just 11%. That is a loss of nearly 60% of clicks at the very top of the results page.
The overall click-through rate for a search with an AI Overview falls from 57% to 33% meaning nearly half of all clicks that would previously have gone to organic results are now absorbed by Google itself.
In absolute terms, this represents approximately 265 million lost organic clicks per month in Germany alone.

Google has pointed out that AI Overviews generate around 10% more total search queries. But this is something of a sleight of hand: more searches at a lower click-through rate per search does not compensate publishers for the volume of traffic being absorbed. The pie may be fractionally larger, but Google is taking a dramatically bigger slice.

It is also worth being precise about what is happening mechanically. AI Overviews are not simply summarising the web in abstract terms. They are synthesising content from specific publisher pages content those publishers invested in creating and presenting it as a complete answer, with source citations that are easy to miss and rarely clicked. The content does the work. Google takes the traffic.

Not All Sectors Are Equal: The Industries Losing Most

One of the most important dimensions of the SISTRIX research is the breakdown by content category. The headline average of 66% total click loss understates the damage for anyone operating in informational content verticals. The impact varies enormously by sector from under 1% for some transaction-focused sites to over 24% for others.

The pattern is consistent and logical once you understand the underlying mechanism. Google is most aggressive with AI Overviews on informational queries searches where users are looking for an explanation, a definition, a recommendation, or an answer to a question. These are precisely the queries that drive traffic to editorial, educational, health, travel advisory, and financial guidance content.

From what I have observed directly across client work in travel and education, this maps precisely onto real-world traffic patterns. Destination guides, course comparison pages, visa information articles, curriculum explainers, all of these fit squarely into the informational query category that AI Overviews are designed to answer. In travel especially, the irony is acute: these are the pages that took the most effort to produce, required genuine expertise, and in many cases involved on-the-ground research. They are also exactly the pages Google can now summarise in a paragraph.

The SISTRIX data shows the largest proportional losses concentrated in health and parenting sites, specialised portals losing over 29% and 24% of their organic clicks respectively. But the underlying dynamic is the same across education, travel, personal finance, and home services: if your content primarily exists to answer questions, Google now competes with you directly.

At the other end of the spectrum, transactional sites - e-commerce, travel booking platforms, price comparison tools are largely insulated. Google does not show AI Overviews for shopping queries at present, and booking-oriented searches see minimal click loss. If your content drives the transaction itself rather than answering a question that precedes it, you are currently safer. But 'currently' is doing significant work in that sentence, Google Merchant Centre here is what is dominating, and this will be closely integrated with Gemini and the SERPs.

The Attribution Problem: A Citation Is Not the Same as a Click

One of the recurring arguments in Google's defence of AI Overviews is that sources are cited that publishers whose content is synthesised receive a link in the AI Overview box. This framing misunderstands what publishers need from search, and what the data actually shows about citation behaviour.

A citation inside an AI Overview box is not equivalent to a ranked organic result. The click-through dynamics are entirely different. Users who receive a complete, well-formatted answer from Google's AI have minimal motivation to follow a source link, particularly when that link appears below the fold, in small text, among several competing citations.

For businesses, this distinction matters enormously. An organic click typically represents genuine user intent, someone who wanted to read your content, evaluate your product, or engage with your service. A citation mention in an AI Overview may mean your content was useful to Google's training pipeline, but it delivers none of the downstream commercial value that organic traffic historically provided: time on site, brand exposure, email sign-ups, conversions.

I have seen this play out directly across clients in both travel and education. Visibility metrics remain reasonable, impressions are stable (and in some cases growing as AI Overviews surface content for a wider range of query variants). But click volume is falling, and with it the business outcomes that justified the content investment in the first place. Being referenced is not the same as being visited.

Search Volume as a Metric Is No Longer Sufficient

One of the most significant practical implications of the SISTRIX research is the challenge it poses to how we evaluate keyword opportunity. Search volume has always been a proxy for potential traffic, but in the era of AI Overviews it has become actively misleading.

A keyword with 10,000 monthly searches and a 27% average CTR for Position 1 delivers a fundamentally different commercial opportunity than the same keyword with an AI Overview and an 11% CTR at Position 1. In the former case, you might expect around 2,700 clicks for the top organic result. In the latter, that same position delivers approximately 1,100. More than 1,500 clicks per month evaporate and those clicks do not go to Position 2. They go to Google.

Any content strategy or editorial roadmap that is still being built purely on search volume data is now operating with a significant blind spot. Keyword prioritisation needs to account for AI Overview presence, the nature of the query (informational vs. transactional), and the estimated real-world CTR given the SERP layout not just the theoretical maximum.

The goal post has moved, and the measurement framework needs to move with it.

What This Means for Content Strategy: A Practical Framework

The data makes clear that not all content is equally at risk, and not all responses to this shift are equally effective, for every client, the action is different, does traffic matter as much as sentiment and exposure, how do users convert.

1. Prioritise depth that AI cannot compress

AI Overviews are very good at summarising. They are considerably less capable of replacing content that requires depth, nuance, narrative structure, or original data. Long-form investigative pieces, proprietary research, detailed methodology breakdowns, and genuinely expert commentary are harder to synthesise without significant loss of value. The recipe category in the SISTRIX data with only a 1% click loss is instructive here: step-by-step instructional content that users need to follow in real time is difficult to replace with a paragraph.

2. Invest in proprietary data and original insight

Content derived from original research, surveys, internal data, or expert interviews cannot be fully replicated by an AI that draws on publicly available training data. If your organisation has access to unique data booking patterns, student outcomes, customer feedback, expert networks that data should be the foundation of your editorial strategy, not an occasional feature.

3. Reconsider the informational content model for pure traffic plays

Content built to answer simple informational queries ‘'what is X', 'how does Y work', 'best Z for beginners' is now in direct competition with Google's own AI. The question is not whether to abandon these queries, but whether the traffic they deliver justifies the production cost in a post-AI Overview landscape. For some, the answer will still be yes, particularly where the informational content serves a clear conversion funnel. For others, there may be better investments.

4. Optimise for citation, not just ranking

The relevant success metric may shift from organic ranking and click volume towards 'mentions and citations' being referenced as a source within AI-generated answers. This is already emerging as a distinct discipline. It requires the same technical foundations as traditional SEO (site authority, structured data, crawlability) but also demands clear signals of expertise, editorial credibility, and source trustworthiness.

5. Diversify traffic sources while organic remains viable

Brands that have built their digital businesses entirely on organic traffic from informational content are carrying a concentration risk that is only growing. Email lists, direct channels, brand search, and referral traffic from genuine communities all become more strategically important when the primary distribution channel is actively pulling traffic back toward itself.

The Uncomfortable Truth and What Comes Next

The SISTRIX research is a fantastic piece of work precisely because it gives us solid evidence around the AI Overview debate. We have known anecdotally, from Search Console data, from client conversations, from our own sites that something was shifting. Now we have numbers.

And the numbers tell a specific story: Google is not merely changing how search results look. It is changing who captures the value created by the web's content. The content creator produces the answer. Google synthesises it, presents it, and absorbs the click. A small attribution appears below the fold.

For publishers, brands, and content teams operating in high-information sectors travel, education, health, finance, SAAS services, this is not a trend to monitor cautiously. It is an active, ongoing redistribution of value that requires a strategic response now. The businesses that adapt their content models, their measurement frameworks, and their channel mix in 2025 and 2026 will be significantly better positioned than those waiting to see how the dust settles, sounds easy right?

Further Reading

Johannes Beus, SISTRIX — 'AI Search: How Data Shows That Google Is Winning' (March 2026): https://www.sistrix.de/news/wie-daten-zeigen-dass-google-gewinnt/

Do you really need to disavow backlinks today?

dergal@gmail.com (Gerry White) — Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:48:23 GMT

Short answer, no

For years, the SEO community has been obsessed with identifying and disavowing "toxic" backlinks. We've spent countless hours poring over link audit tools, flagging supposedly harmful links, and submitting disavow files to Google. However, after observing the evolution of Google's algorithms and the actual impact of these practices, I've significantly changed my stance on this approach.

The Problem with "Toxic" Link Tools

Most backlink analysis tools are quick to label links as "toxic" or "harmful," but the reality is far more nuanced. These tools often flag links that are simply noise—low-quality links that point to virtually every website on the internet. You'll frequently see these patterns with directories or aggregation sites that have names like "Top Sites" or similar generic monikers.

The truth is, these links aren't toxic—they're just irrelevant. They're the digital equivalent of background noise, and Google has become remarkably sophisticated at recognising and ignoring them. When a tool flags thousands of links as problematic, it's worth questioning whether the real problem lies with the algorithm making these determinations rather than the links themselves.

Google's Evolution in Link Handling

Google's approach to low-value links has matured considerably over the past few years. Rather than penalising websites for poor-quality inbound links, the search engine has largely moved towards simply ignoring them. This shift makes perfect sense from Google's perspective—why punish website owners for links they cannot control?

This evolution means that the vast majority of links flagged by audit tools are simply being discounted rather than causing active harm to your website's rankings. Google's algorithms have become adept at identifying natural link patterns and filtering out the noise, making the obsessive pursuit of link disavowal largely unnecessary for most websites.

When Disavowal Still Makes Sense

That said, there are still circumstances where I would consider recommending a disavow file, though these situations are increasingly rare. The primary red flag I look for is a pattern of oddly off-brand but exact-match keyword links, particularly when these links appear across multiple pages with similar content.

For example, if you run a boutique marketing consultancy and suddenly acquire dozens of links with anchor text like "cheap marketing services" or "discount SEO packages" from unrelated websites, this could indicate a negative SEO attack or poorly executed link-building campaign. In these cases, the links don't just lack value—they actively misrepresent your brand and could potentially confuse Google's understanding of your website's focus.

The Shift Towards Quality Preservation

The broader trend in SEO has moved away from damage limitation towards quality preservation. Rather than spending time identifying and disavowing potentially harmful links, the focus should be on building high-quality, relevant links that genuinely enhance your website's authority and relevance.

Google's penalties for backlink issues have become fewer and farther between, largely because the search engine has become better at automatically handling these situations. The energy once spent on link audits and disavowal files is better invested in creating valuable content that naturally attracts quality links and building relationships within your industry.

A More Strategic Approach

This doesn't mean we should ignore our backlink profiles entirely. Regular monitoring remains valuable for understanding how your content is being received and shared across the web. However, the response to discovering low-quality links should typically be to simply carry on with your quality content and link-building efforts rather than rushing to disavow.

The exception, as mentioned, is when you identify clear patterns of manipulative or misleading links that could genuinely confuse search engines about your website's purpose or quality. In these cases, a targeted disavowal focusing specifically on the problematic patterns makes sense.

Final thoughts

The SEO industry's relationship with link disavowal has been characterised by overcaution and tool-driven paranoia. As Google's algorithms have become more sophisticated, the need for aggressive disavowal has diminished significantly.

Rather than spending time battling largely harmless link noise, SEO professionals would be better served focusing on creating excellent content, building genuine relationships, and earning links that truly enhance their websites' authority and relevance. The future of link building lies not in what we remove, but in what we create and earn through quality work.

Gerry White is an SEO consultant specialising in sustainable, quality-focused search marketing strategies.

SEO Isn't Dead – It's Just Evolving Into Search Everywhere Optimisation

dergal@gmail.com (Gerry White) — Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:32:12 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

I'm tired of hearing "SEO is dead" every time Google releases a new feature or AI gets mentioned in a marketing conference. And the constant parade of rebranded acronyms trying to replace good old-fashioned SEO & marketing.

Let me be clear: SEO isn't dead. It's evolving. It's changing faster than ever before, yes, but the fundamental principles that have driven this discipline for over two decades remain as relevant today as they were, but if you are still stuffing keywords and buying dodgy backlinks from link farms, your approach is dead.

The difference now? SEO has evolved from "Search Engine Optimisation" to "Search Everywhere Optimisation" – and that's not just another rebrand. It's a recognition of reality, I’ve been using this term for a while, but I will give credit to Ashley for popularising it!

The Perpetual Rebranding Circus

Every few months, someone in our industry decides they've cracked the code and invented the "next big thing" that will replace SEO. We've had:

AEO (Answer Engine Optimisation)
GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation)
SGE Optimisation (Search Generative Experience Optimisation)
VEO (Voice Engine Optimisation)
CEO (Conversational Engine Optimisation)
SXO (Search Experience Optimisation) - actually i quite like that one as I feel it is a core part of what people miss in traditional SEO and it helps align with business objectives.

And the list goes on. Each one claiming to be the "future of search" while completely missing the point.

Here's what frustrates me about this endless rebranding: it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. We don't need new acronyms every time Google adds a feature or changes how results are displayed. What we need is to understand that SEO – the real discipline of helping people find information – has always been about adapting to how search evolves.

What SEO Actually Means (And Always Has)

At its core, SEO has never been about gaming search engines. Despite what the salesmen and reddit would have you believe, effective SEO has always been about one fundamental thing: understanding how people search for information and helping them find what they need (marketing).

That's it. Everything else – the technical optimisation, the content creation, the link building, the user experience improvements – these are all just tactics in service of that central mission.

I started in this industry, before Google was a thing, directory submission and calling your brand ‘AAA Recruitment or A1 Taxis actually helped’ then of course Google, and people searched by typing keywords into Google and clicking on blue links. Today, they might:

Ask Siri a question while driving
Take a photo of a product to find where to buy it
Watch a YouTube video to learn how to fix something
Ask ChatGPT for recommendations
Browse TikTok for restaurant reviews
Use voice search on their smart speaker

The behaviors have changed. The interfaces have evolved. But the fundamental human need to find information remains constant. And that's exactly what SEO optimisation has always been about.

Search Everywhere Optimisation: The Real Evolution

This is why I prefer Search Everywhere Optimisation - SEO over all these trendy new acronyms. It's not a rebrand – it's an acknowledgment that search happens everywhere now, not just in that little white box on Google.com.

People search:

On Google (traditional web search, SGE, AI Overviews)
On social platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn)
On e-commerce sites (Amazon, eBay, Etsy)
In AI chatbots (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini)
Through voice assistants (Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant)
In mobile apps (maps, shopping, travel, food delivery)
On streaming platforms (Netflix, Spotify, YouTube)

Each of these has its own algorithm, its own ranking factors, its own user behaviors. But the fundamental SEO principles – understanding user intent, creating relevant content, providing excellent user experiences, building authority and trust – these apply across all of them.

The SGE and AI Panic: Missing the Forest for the Trees

Let's talk about Search Generative Experience (SGE) and AI Overviews, since these seem to be causing the most panic in our industry right now.

Yes, Google is showing AI-generated answers at the top of search results. Yes, this changes how some queries are answered. But no, this doesn't mean SEO is dead or that we need to completely reinvent our approach.

Here's what I've observed after monitoring SGE performance across dozens of sites:

What's Actually Changing:

Zero-click searches are increasing for simple informational queries
Long-tail and complex queries still drive significant traffic
Commercial intent keywords are less affected by AI overviews
Local search results remain largely unchanged
Video and image search continue to grow

What's Staying the Same:

Quality content still ranks well and gets featured in AI responses
E-E-A-T signals (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) are more important than ever, even if it isn’t a ranking factor, it's a conversion factor.
User experience factors continue to influence rankings
Technical SEO fundamentals still matter for crawling and indexing
Brand recognition helps content get selected for AI summaries

The sites that are panicking about AI are often the ones that were already on shaky ground – thin content sites, low-quality publishers who were gaming the system rather than serving users.

The Fundamentals That Never Change

While the interfaces and algorithms evolve, these core SEO principles remain constant:

Understand Your Audience
Whether someone's typing into Google, asking Alexa, or browsing TikTok, you need to understand:
What they're looking for
How they search for it
What problems they're trying to solve
What format they prefer information in
Create Genuinely Helpful Content
This hasn't changed since day one of SEO. The content that performs well in AI overviews is the same content that performed well in traditional search: comprehensive, accurate, well-researched, and genuinely helpful.
Build Real Authority
Whether it's backlinks, social signals, brand mentions, or being cited by AI systems, authority still matters. But it has to be real authority based on expertise and trust, not manufactured through manipulation.
Optimize for User Experience
Fast loading times, mobile responsiveness, clear navigation, easy-to-find information – these factors matter whether someone finds you through Google, social media, or an AI recommendation.
Make Your Content Discoverable
This means following technical SEO best practices, using structured data, creating clear information architecture, and yes, still optimizing for keywords – because that's how both humans and algorithms understand what your content is about.

The KPIs Are Evolving (And That's Fine)

One thing that is genuinely changing is how we measure success. The traditional metrics of organic traffic and keyword rankings are becoming less comprehensive as search behaviors diversify.

Traditional Metrics (Still Important):

Organic search traffic
Keyword rankings
Click-through rates (calculated correctly, not at an site level)
Engagement metrics (please note, I also rant about this seperately)
Conversions

Note - I rant repeatedly about averages of these metrics, sitewide being

Expanding Metrics (Increasingly Important):

Brand search volume (people looking for you specifically)
Direct traffic growth (repeat visitors, brand awareness)
Cross-platform visibility (appearing in various search environments)
AI citation frequency (being referenced in AI responses)
Voice search performance (local and mobile queries)
Social search visibility (discovery through social platforms)

The smart SEOs are already tracking these broader metrics because they understand that success in "Search Everywhere Optimisation" requires a more holistic view.

Why the Rebranding Doesn't Help

Here's my fundamental issue with constantly rebranding our discipline: it creates confusion and undermines the legitimacy of what we do.

When we keep changing what we call ourselves, we're essentially telling the world that our previous work was wrong or outdated. That's nonsense. The technical SEO work I did ten years ago is still serving websites well today. The content strategies that worked in 2015 are still driving traffic and conversions.

What's changed is the complexity and the number of channels we need to consider. But calling it "GEO" or "AEO" or whatever new acronym is trendy this month doesn't make our work more legitimate or effective.

It just makes us look like we don't know what we're doing.

The Acceleration Problem

There's no denying that SEO is changing faster than ever before. What used to be annual or semi-annual algorithm updates are now continuous refinements. New features launch monthly. AI capabilities expand weekly.

This acceleration is real and it's challenging. But it's not unprecedented in the world of digital marketing. Social media platforms change their algorithms constantly. Advertising platforms introduce new features regularly. Email deliverability rules evolve continuously.

The solution isn't to rebrand ourselves every time something changes. The solution is to:

Build Adaptable Systems

Instead of optimizing for specific features, build content and technical systems that can adapt to change. Focus on fundamentals that transcend any single algorithm or interface.

Stay Close to User Behavior

Monitor how your actual users are finding and interacting with your content. Don't just chase the latest Google announcement – watch what real people are actually doing.

Diversify Your Approach

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Build visibility across multiple search environments, social platforms, and discovery mechanisms.

Maintain Long-term Perspective

Some changes are fundamental shifts (like mobile-first indexing). Others are temporary experiments (like Google+ integration). Learn to distinguish between the two.

What This Means for SEO Professionals

If you're working in SEO today, here's my practical advice:

Embrace the Expansion

If you work in SEO it is changing - you now need to understand:

Traditional web search optimisation
AI and generative search behaviors
Social platform algorithms
Voice search patterns
Local search dynamics
E-commerce platform optimisation
App store optimisation

But this isn't a bad thing – it makes you more valuable, not less.

Focus on Universal Principles

Instead of chasing every new feature, focus on the principles that work across all platforms:
User intent understanding
Quality content creation
Technical excellence
Authority building
Experience optimisation
Communicate Value Clearly

Stop apologizing for being an "SEO" and stop trying to rebrand what you do. SEO is a legitimate, valuable discipline that's evolved with the internet. Own it.

The Future Is Still SEO

Will search continue to evolve? Absolutely. Will AI change how people find information? It already is. Will new platforms and technologies emerge? Without question.

But the fundamental mission of SEO – helping people find the information they need – will remain constant. The tactics will evolve, the channels will multiply, and the complexity will increase. But the core discipline will endure, it is a core and valuable part of digital marketing.

Instead of constantly rebranding what we do, let's get better at doing it. Let's embrace the fact that SEO now means "Search Everywhere Optimisation" and build our skills accordingly.

The SEO professionals who succeed in this evolving landscape won't be the ones with the trendiest acronyms. They'll be the ones who understand that good SEO has always been about serving users, building authority, and creating excellent experiences – regardless of where or how those users are searching.

Stop the Rebranding. Start the Evolutio

So here's my challenge to our industry: let's stop wasting energy on rebranding and start focusing on evolution. Let's acknowledge that SEO has grown beyond its original scope without abandoning the principles that made it valuable.

Let's call it what it is: SEO. Search Everywhere Optimisation. The discipline of helping people find what they need, wherever they're looking for it.

Because at the end of the day, whether someone finds your content through Google's AI Overview, TikTok's algorithm, Amazon's search function, or ChatGPT's recommendations, the fundamentals that got them there are the same fundamentals we've been working on all along.

SEO isn't dead. It's not even close. It's just getting more interesting.

Image credit - Alan Levine

The Complete Guide to Hreflang: Mastering International SEO

dergal@gmail.com (Gerry White) — Sun, 27 Jul 2025 11:17:57 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

If you've landed on this guide, chances are you're either about to embark on an international SEO project or you're trying to fix a hreflang implementation that's gone sideways. Either way, you're in the right place.

I've been working with international SEO for over a decade, and I can tell you that hreflang is simultaneously one of the most powerful tools in our SEO toolkit and one of the most misunderstood. With the right approach, it's absolutely manageable.

What Hreflang Actually Does (And Why You Should Care)

Before we dive into the technical nitty-gritty, let's make sure we're all on the same page about what hreflang actually accomplishes.

Hreflang is essentially a way of telling search engines: "Hey, this page exists in multiple versions for different languages or regions, and here's how they all relate to each other." It's your way of preventing Google from getting confused when you have similar content targeting different markets.

Think about it this way: You've got an e-commerce site selling widgets. You have one version for UK customers (prices in GBP, "colour" spelled the British way), another for US customers (prices in USD, "color" spelled the American way), and maybe a third for Canadian customers (prices in CAD, but with that lovely Canadian blend of British and American spelling).

Without hreflang, Google might see these as duplicate content. With proper hreflang implementation, Google understands these are regional variations and will serve the most appropriate version to each user, boosting trust, and conversion rate.

The Business Case for Getting This Right

Here's why this matters beyond just keeping Google happy:

User Experience : When someone in Germany searches for your product and lands on your English site instead of your German one, you've lost them. Users expect content in their language, in their currency, with their local shipping options. Hreflang helps ensure they get the right version from the start.
Conversion Rates : I've seen conversion rate improvements of 30-40% when users land on properly localized pages instead of generic international ones. That's not just because of language – it's currency, local trust signals, relevant contact information, and cultural nuances.
SEO Performance : Properly implemented hreflang can help consolidate ranking signals across your international pages while ensuring each market sees the most relevant version. It's a win-win.

When You Actually Need Hreflang

Not every site needs hreflang. Here's when you definitely should implement it:

Multiple languages : If you have the same content translated into different languages
Regional targeting : Same language, different regions (US vs UK vs Australia)
Mixed approach : Different languages AND regional variations (Spanish for Spain vs Spanish for Mexico)

You DON'T need hreflang if:

You only have one language and one target market
Your international pages have completely different content / intent (not translations or regional variations)

The Three Golden Rules of Hreflang

Before we get into implementation methods, let me give you the three non-negotiable rules that will save you hours of troubleshooting later:

Rule 1: Bidirectional Relationships

If page A links to page B via hreflang, then page B must link back to page A. Think of it like a relationship status on social media – both parties need to confirm the relationship or nobody believes it's real.

Rule 2: Self-Referencing Tags

Every page needs to include a hreflang tag pointing to itself. Yes, it feels redundant, but it's how you tell Google "this page is the canonical version for this language/region."

Rule 3: Use Canonical URLs Only

Your hreflang tags should always point to the canonical version of each page. If you're pointing to non-canonical URLs, you're sending mixed signals that will confuse Google.

Getting the Language and Region Codes Right

This is where I see a lot of implementations go wrong. You need to use the correct ISO codes:

Language codes : ISO 639-1 format (two letters)

en for English
de for German
fr for French
es for Spanish

Region codes : ISO 3166-1 Alpha 2 format (two letters)

GB for United Kingdom (not UK!)
US for United States
CA for Canada
AU for Australia

Combined format : language-region

en-GB for English speakers in the UK
en-US for English speakers in the US
fr-CA for French speakers in Canada

Common mistakes I see constantly :

Using UK instead of GB for United Kingdom
Using CH for China (it's actually Switzerland – China is CN)
Using EU as a region code (it doesn't exist in ISO 3166-1)

Language vs Region: A Strategic Decision

Here's something that often trips people up: should you target by language alone or include regional variations?

My general recommendation is to start with language-only targeting unless you have a specific business reason for regional variations. For example:

Start with : es (Spanish) Add later if needed : es-MX (Spanish for Mexico), es-ES (Spanish for Spain)

The beauty of this approach is that es acts as a fallback for Spanish speakers in any country not specifically targeted. Google will always choose the most specific match available, so someone in Mexico would see es-MX if it exists, but fall back to es if it doesn't.

Three Ways to Implement Hreflang

Method 1: HTML Link Tags in the Head

This is the most straightforward method and what I usually recommend for smaller sites:

Pros : Easy to implement, easy to understand, works immediately Cons : Can slow down page load times on sites with many languages, requires changes to every page

Method 2: HTTP Headers

This is essential for non-HTML files (PDFs.):

Link: <https://example.com/document.pdf>; rel="alternate"; hreflang="en",

<https://example.com/es/document.pdf>; rel="alternate"; hreflang="es",

<https://example.com/fr/document.pdf>; rel="alternate"; hreflang="fr"

Pros : Works for any file type Cons : Can be complex to implement, requires server-level changes

Method 3: XML Sitemaps

This is my preferred method for larger sites:

<url>

<loc>https://example.com/page/</loc>

<xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="en" href="https://example.com/page/" />

<xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="es" href="https://example.com/es/page/" />

<xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="fr" href="https://example.com/fr/page/" />

<xhtml:link rel="alternate" hreflang="x-default" href="https://example.com/page/" />

</url>

Pros : No impact on page load times, easier to maintain centrally, scales well
Cons : More verbose, requires XML sitemap management

The X-Default Tag: Your Safety Net

The x-default tag is your fallback option. It tells Google: "If none of the other language/region combinations match the user, show them this page."

I always recommend including an x-default tag. It should typically point to :

Your primary language version
Your most internationally accessible version

Common Implementation Mistakes (And How to Avoid Them)

After auditing hundreds of hreflang implementations, I've seen the same mistakes repeatedly. Here are the big ones:

Mistake 1: Incomplete Bidirectional Links

The Problem: Page A links to Page B, but Page B doesn't link back to Page A. The Fix: Every page in your hreflang cluster must link to every other page in the cluster.

Mistake 2: Linking to Non-Indexable Pages

The Problem: Hreflang tags pointing to pages that return 404s, are blocked by robots.txt, or have noindex tags. The Fix: Ensure all pages in your hreflang implementation are crawlable and indexable.

Mistake 3: Broken Head Tags

The Problem: Hreflang tags ending up in the <body> instead of <head> due to broken HTML. The Fix: Validate your HTML regularly and ensure hreflang tags stay in the head section.

Mistake 4: Mixed Implementation Methods

The Problem: Using both HTML tags and XML sitemaps for the same pages, creating conflicting signals. The Fix: Pick one method and stick with it.

Mistake 5: Forgetting Self-Reference Tags

The Problem: Pages don't include hreflang tags pointing to themselves. The Fix: Every page needs a self-referencing hreflang tag.

Advanced Considerations

Handling Different URL Structures

Hreflang works regardless of your URL structure:

Subdomains : en.example.com, es.example.com
Subdirectories : example.com/en/, example.com/es/
Different domains : example.com, example.es
Mixed approaches : Whatever makes sense for your business

Dealing with Partial Translations

You don't need a 1:1 relationship between all pages across all languages. Start with your most important pages:

Homepage
Main category pages
Top-performing product pages
Key landing pages

Hreflang and Canonical Tags

These work together, not against each other. Each language version should have:

A canonical tag pointing to itself
Hreflang tags pointing to all other language versions

Testing and Validation

Tools for Testing Hreflang

Google Search Console : Check the International Targeting report for hreflang errors
Hreflang Testing Tool : Various online tools can validate your implementation
Browser Extensions : Chrome extensions that show hreflang tags on any page
Site Audit Tools : Screaming Frog, Ahrefs Site Audit, and similar tools can detect hreflang issues

What to Look For

Missing return tags : Every hreflang relationship should be bidirectional
Invalid language codes : Make sure you're using proper ISO codes
Broken links : All hreflang URLs should return 200 status codes
Canonical conflicts : Hreflang should point to canonical URLs
Self-reference missing : Each page should reference itself

Maintenance and Ongoing Management

Hreflang isn't a "set it and forget it" solution. Here's how to keep it working:

When Adding New Pages

Ensure translated versions include hreflang tags
Update existing pages to reference the new translations
Add new URLs to your XML sitemap if using that method

When Removing Pages

Remove hreflang references from other language versions
Update your XML sitemap
Consider setting up redirects if the content moves

Regular Audits

Schedule quarterly audits to check for:

Broken hreflang links
Missing bidirectional relationships
New pages without hreflang implementation
Changes in URL structure affecting existing tags

Automation and Scaling

For larger sites, manual hreflang management becomes impractical. Consider:

CMS Integration

Most modern CMS platforms have plugins or built-in functionality for hreflang:

WordPress: Yoast SEO Premium, WPML
Drupal: Built-in language negotiation
Custom CMS: API-driven hreflang generation

Template-Based Approaches

Create hreflang templates that automatically generate tags based on:

Current page URL structure
Available translations in your CMS
Predefined language/region mappings

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Google Isn't Showing the Right Language Version

Possible causes :

Missing or broken bidirectional links
Conflicting signals (content language doesn't match hreflang)
User's browser language settings override
Geographic location vs language preference mismatch

Solutions :

Audit your hreflang implementation for completeness
Ensure page content actually matches the declared language
Remember that hreflang is a signal, not a directive

Hreflang Tags Not Being Recognized

Possible causes :

Tags in the wrong location (body instead of head)
Invalid HTML breaking the head section
Incorrect syntax or language codes
Pages not being crawled/indexed

Solutions :

Validate HTML markup
Check robots.txt and noindex tags
Verify syntax against official specifications
Submit XML sitemaps to Search Console

The Future of Hreflang

While hreflang remains the standard for international SEO, keep an eye on:

AI improvements : Google's getting better at understanding language and regional intent
Core Web Vitals : Page speed implications of multiple hreflang tags
JavaScript frameworks : Client-side rendering considerations for hreflang

Wrapping Up

Hreflang might seem daunting at first, but it's one of those technical SEO elements that, when implemented correctly, provides clear, measurable benefits. Start small, follow the three golden rules, and build from there.

The key to success with hreflang is treating it as an ongoing process, not a one-time implementation. Regular audits, proper maintenance procedures, and staying current with best practices will ensure your international SEO efforts pay dividends.

Remember: hreflang is a signal, not a directive. Google will do its best to honor your markup, but user experience signals, content quality, and other factors all play a role in which version gets shown to users.

If you're just getting started with international SEO, begin with your most important pages and expand gradually. If you're fixing an existing implementation, prioritize the issues that affect your highest-traffic pages first.

The complexity of hreflang reflects the complexity of international markets – but master it, and you'll have cleared one of the biggest technical hurdles in international SEO.

Need help with your hreflang implementation? Feel free to reach out. International SEO is complex, but it doesn't have to be overwhelming.