IrishWonder

@lilyraynyc @gaganghotra_ >we didn’t appreciate the scale, sophistication, or speed They could have just looked at Reddit

This is why we can’t have nice things. h/t @gaganghotra_

@FarvingCo Gut

Mastic gum ERADICATED H. pylori in 14 days — without antibiotics “Mastic Gum Kills Helicobacter Pylori.” That’s not a headline. That’s a 6-word paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 4.4 billion people have this bacteria in their stomach lining right now. Most were infected as children. Most were never tested. Most are walking around with chronic bloating, reflux, brain fog, and fatigue — and blaming it on food sensitivities. H. pylori is a spiral-shaped bacteria that burrows into your stomach lining. It produces an enzyme called urease that neutralizes your stomach acid. Without acid, you can’t digest food. You can’t absorb B12 or iron. Undigested food ferments in your gut — producing the gas, bloating, and reflux people try to fix with diet changes for years. It doesn’t get better on its own. It compounds. A 2,500-year-old tree resin kills it on contact. Researchers tested mastic gum against 7 H. pylori strains — including 3 that were resistant to antibiotics. It killed all of them. Every strain. Resistant or not. A separate RCT of 180 patients found that adding mastic gum to standard triple therapy raised the eradication rate from 63.3% to 92.2% (P<0.001). It didn’t just work alone — it made the standard treatment 50% more effective. If you want to try it — don’t buy random mastic gum off Amazon. Most of it is the wrong species at the wrong dose. I use @GrecoGum (code GUNNAR for 10% off). Pure Chios mastic. The same variety used in the NEJM study.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ PMID: 9874617 | PMID: 19879118 If 3+ of those symptoms sound like your life — you need to know which gut dysfunction is actually causing them before you waste another year on the wrong protocol. I built a free 2-minute assessment that tells you. Plus the matched supplement protocol with exact doses. Comment “GUT” and I’ll send it.

@screamingfrog Add a disclaimer saying, you still need to verify with an SEO professional if this robots.txt file is correct for your site or something like that - but would be super useful to have for quick post-audit action

@IrishWonder Cheers for the suggestion! We flag issues like indexable search results pages, so could possibly help. Obv concern would be anyone taking it too literally! 👍👌

Feature suggestion @screamingfrog : let me build a robots.txt file for a site based on the crawl results/analysis

🙀

A floating house was spotted drifting down the Neris River in the heart of Vilnius on Tuesday afternoon. Not something you see every day!

@jbobbink Hilarious

Google is gaslighting the entire SEO industry about JavaScript. I have the receipts. This week Google removed the "Design for accessibility" section from their official JavaScript SEO documentation. Their reason? JavaScript rendering is "no longer a barrier" for Google Search. I nearly choked on my coffee. I manage SEO across hundreds of properties. I see what actually happens when Google tries to render JavaScript sites. Every single day. This is the fifth update to the same document since December 2025, part of a systematic campaign to replace broad cautions with specific technical guidance Here is what I see that Google apparently does not. Content behind tabs, accordions, and "load more" buttons? Completely invisible. Google does not click. Google does not scroll. Google does not interact. That content simply does not exist for them. Structured data injected via JavaScript? Random. Google's own documentation on developers.google.com admits that JS-generated Product markup makes shopping crawls less frequent and less reliable. I see it break constantly. Images loaded through JavaScript? Good luck getting those indexed. Lazy-loaded images behind interaction events are a black hole. Internal links rendered via JavaScript? Onely proved Google needs 9x more time to crawl JS pages than plain HTML. Nine times. Their experiment showed 313 hours for JS versus 36 hours for HTML to reach the same depth. A 2024 counterpoint study by Vercel/MERJ found most pages rendered within minutes. And here is the part nobody is talking about. AI crawlers cannot render JavaScript at all. GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot. They see raw HTML only. Onely's 2025 research estimated about 70% of modern websites may be completely invisible to AI search because of JavaScript dependencies. So Google removes the warning. Developers lean harder into client-side rendering. And what happens? Sites become more dependent on Google's proprietary rendering pipeline while going completely dark for every competing search and AI system. Convenient timing. Google is not telling you JavaScript is fine because it is fine. Google is telling you JavaScript is fine because it benefits Google. Server-side rendering is not optional. It never was. Do not let a documentation update convince you otherwise. Sources: 1. Barry Schwartz, "Loading Content With JavaScript Does Not Make It Harder For Google Search" Mar 5, 2026 2. Google Developers, JavaScript SEO Basics (the removed section) 3. Google Developers, Structured Data with JavaScript (the shopping crawl admission) 4. Vercel "How Google handles JavaScript throughout the indexing process" Jul 20224

My personal recommendation: a great solution for those running consulting services - you can invoice your clients in any currency, get great currency conversion rates and even get a physical or virtual card wise.com/invite/dic/jul…

…would be the first one to come up with a metric like DA/DR but for LLMs? </irony>

AHREFs has no content about domain authority (well doh, they use DR not DA, they are not Moz, surely they can talk about “domain authority” as a general concept but well) and still gets cited by hallucinating LLMs and you are all discussing how to appear in LLMs - which tool…

@searchmartin And that, your honour, is how my serp scraper sites ended up ranking back in the day 😺

Looking at transcripts of SEO conference talks I gave 15+ years ago is humbling

Can’t agree more

I keep hearing SEOs say "but our AI content is ranking fine." That's exactly the problem. Tomek Rudzki from Peec AI just published research that should make every content team pause. They analyzed companies using popular AI content generation tools and found that 36% of the brands in their success stories had massive Google visibility drops. For one tool, it was even worse. 75% of the showcase clients had significant traffic losses. The pattern is always the same. Rank, bank and tank. Publish hundreds of AI articles. Rank quickly. Monetize. Then get hit by a core update or manual action. Abandon domain. Repeat. Google's March 2024 update deindexed 837 sites overnight. Originality AI confirmed 100% of affected pages had AI-generated content. 20 million monthly visits gone. But here's the part most people miss. When Grokipedia lost its Google rankings in early 2026, Peec AI's Malte Landwehr tracked what happened across AI search engines. ChatGPT, AI Mode, and AI Overviews all reduced citations at the exact same time. One Google penalty now makes you invisible everywhere. LLMs use search engines for grounding. If Google demotes you, ChatGPT stops citing you too. Now let me be honest here. I work in industries like casino where rank, bank and tank is a common and accepted tactic. You build a site, extract value, and move on when it gets hit. I'm not going to pretend that doesn't work. In some niches it's simply part of the business model. But here's what bothers me. The companies selling AI content generation tools are marketing them to brands building long-term businesses. SaaS companies. Ecommerce brands. B2B companies. And they're not being transparent about what happens next. Rudzki found that 3 out of 4 major global brands featured on one tool's website had suffered significant visibility losses. These aren't disposable affiliate sites. These are real companies with real reputations. After 30 years in SEO, I see a clear line: Rank, bank and tank as a deliberate strategy with eyes wide open? Fine. That's a business decision. Selling AI content at scale to brands without warning them about the risk? That's irresponsible. The data backs this up. NP Digital tested 744 articles across 68 websites and found human-written content generates 5.44x more traffic over time. Ahrefs analyzed 600,000 pages across 100,000 keywords and found only 4.6% of top-ranking pages are purely AI-generated. And Lily Ray predicts a huge crackdown on scaled AI content in 2026. If you're a tool provider or consultant, be honest with your clients. Tell them what the research actually shows. Let them make an informed decision. Rudzki's advice is simple: before you publish, ask yourself. Would I want to read this? Does it add something you can't get from ChatGPT itself? If the answer is no, don't hit publish. Sources: → Tomek Rudzki, "The real risk of AI-generated content" (Peec AI, Feb 25 2026): peec.ai/blog/the-real-… → Originality AI, AI content penalty analysis (2024): → Neil Patel / NP Digital, "AI vs Human" study, 744 articles, 68 sites (2024) → Si Quan Ong & Xibeijia Guan / Ahrefs, 600K page analysis (Jul 2025)

Claude requesting a site's XML sitemap

@lilyraynyc SEO tip: SEO traffic down ? Don’t look at Google alone. Check Bing Webmaster Tools and Google Search Console. If both decline near the same days, it’s probably a technical SEO issue or competitors gaining ground, not just Google adjusting their rankers or demoting the website.

@netsolcares Only, neither your single domain search nor your bulk search does not work - are you not bothered by your suddenly falling numbers of domain registrations per day?

@IrishWonder Thanks for reaching out and bringing this to our attention! Our website is up and running as expected. If you’d like assistance with purchasing the domain or need further help, please send us a DM with your details, and our team will review and assist you promptly.

Been looking at some domain registrar stats and suddenly noticed something weird going on with Network Solutions @netsolcares : domainnamestat.com/statistics/reg…

@undercover @netsolcares Honestly wondering how those 3 got through

@IrishWonder @netsolcares even 3 a day is too much

@PeterMindenhall @zapier Yeah, AI can be properly trained but most people do not bother...

Got to hand it to @zapier and their integration of copilot for writing zaps for you. They seem to have thought hard about where it gets it's info from (the actual documentation of the things you are using, and not some random web search) - as a result, it actually does a good job

That's a lot of business lost over the last few days, wonder if @netsolcares are even aware?

(for comparison, this domain is definitely available - search results from name.com )