成海

@CyrusShepard haters are gonna assume people are treating this like it’s some amazing SEO hack and then shit on it to feel superior, OMG

@XiaoKooeye @vista8 通过API接入站点, 部分是可以自动优化的

@vista8 发现问题，能自动优化不？ 不然像空气质量一样，光检测不够，还得治理。 不然更闹心

如果你的网站SEO收录不好，可安装这个Skill：seo-audit 让 AI 抓取网站做一个初步分析，能发现不少基础问题。 安装指令：npx skills add github.com/coreyhaines31/… --skill seo-audit 刚帮朋友公司网站做了个分析，报告质量还可以，能找到Sitemap、301定向、noindex、canonical 标签等问题。

@Charles_SEO Thanks for the research. I definitely remember Google recommending breaking content into chunks because it’s more readable...

ANTHROPIC IS TARGETING SEO CONTENT! 🚨 AND GOOGLE USES CHUNKS, MARKDOWN FILES AND EVEN LLMS.TXT IN IT'S OWN INTERNAL SYSTEMS!!! 👀 Meanwhile Google's own AI SEO guide tells you none of this even matters... Anthropic literally wrote into Claude's system prompt that SEO content should be treated like conspiracy theories ⁉️ Full breakdown 👇

@neilpatel This kind of follower only sticks around for the drama. They follow you purely for gossip — they only applaud when you embarrass yourself, mess up, or attack someone else.

If your followers are just watching your posts and waiting for your next announcement, you don't have a community. You have an audience. And the platform decides who sees it. The brands that stop worrying about algorithm changes are the ones who built something real first. #DigitalMarketing #BrandBuilding #MarketingStrategy #CommunityBuilding

No matter which country they’re from, SEOs nowadays are all about attacking one another. Maybe it’s an old tradition? But I didn’t see this kind of behavior much before. When did it begin?

@MarkPreston1969 They support one another.

Are you doing things to specifically increase organic exposure... ...or is your organic exposure growth a natural impact of what you are doing? My Connect Those Dots Growth Framework™ is all about the latter...

@natmiletic In the SEO and online marketing world, tons of people enjoy tearing others down to make themselves look smarter — often basing it on nothing but Google’s unclear guidelines

This is why there is no point arguing with strangers on the internet

@mq_p The issue is that Lovable sites all look too alike, especially the initial drafts. I’m on the platform every single day.

I tried Lovable again seriously, how agencies can sell landing pages anymore???

@gaganghotra_ see the same thing. Some sites selling unique products just build a basic Google Sites website with a few pages, and they keep getting leads consistently — they barely even think about on-page optimization.

A LOT of people are applying right solution at wrong places! AI content is a great opportunity for small boring businesses - a rubbish collection company in Sydney and only 200 pages. We used AI content (with editing) on those pages + unique real images + youtube shorts and spent a lot on PR to get backlinks. It's making them bank now. But same playbook can't work in competitive spaces because competitors are also spending a lot on SEO but in many boring business cases - SEO of most competitor is shit show. That's why even with not much edited AI content on pages -> u end up in a situation where your boring business site is still better than your competitors. And companies who are trying to scale this AI playbook in really competitive non-boring businesses space are just going to end as getting a hit from Google. Specifically the ones who have scaled to like 5K or 10K or even 100K pages using AI in a short time period with not much editing of each page.

@gaganghotra_ Content like this has been around since the internet first became popular, and it’s still everywhere today. The difference is that people are heavily abusing it now. I think Google must try hard to distinguish the good from the bad, not swipe all.

Googlers didn't hold back in this new piece "Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search" but still in the myth busting section they didn't exact mention - self promotional listicles There are some other bits in this piece which sort of directionally point to listicles but would have been cool if they exact mentioned self promotional listicles & busted the myth -> classified it as spamming.

@seosmarty Search layers and training layers are clearly related but obviously distinct. We can't dismiss other SEO tactics just because of Google's vague guideline — to some extent, those optimizations aren't illogical either.

I understand everyone's excitement about Google's AI SEO guidelines, but to be sure: 👉 These guidelines talk only about the *searching part* (missing out the training layer, which often impacts how they search, too!) 👉 These guidelines are about Google's *search features* (AI Mode and AI Overviews). If you talk about search features, of course, you refer to them as "SEO" :) Not saying that I disagree with that mythbusting part, obviously (the industry needed it). Just thought those were two important things to note... Also, I've annotated what stood out to me... What stood out to you?

@Charles_SEO The hilarious part is, people love pulling up a Google guidelines link just to point out how everyone else is screwing up.

Seen a lot of people still quoting Google as fact, especially with the new AI SEO Guide they released... Remember, they've routinely put red herrings in the documentation and have explicitly said X doesn't even exist, when reality says otherwise. Negative SEO is one of them 👇

😆

@gfiorelli1 @searchmartin @iPullRank @aleyda Often it’s because SEO success is hard to measure objectively. Since people can get results using all kinds of different approaches, they end up firmly believing their method is the right one.

@searchmartin @iPullRank @aleyda I wasn’t saying it “reads” like that. The cynical me was implying the very spread structural lack of understanding written/spoken words that many SEOs suffer from.

When Google makes a statement or updates documentation, SEOs be like: - (If it aligns with their opinion) "see even Google says it, so I've been right this whole time." - (if it doesn't align with their opinion) "see, Google is always lying to us!"

Are there real SEOs out there investing heavily in LLMs.txt, specialized chunking, AI-specific markup, and all that — actually expecting it to work?

@natmiletic They’re just hyping these things up like they’re critical. But honestly, if you’re busy doing real SEO basics every day, you won’t have much time to obsess over all these impossible-to-measure factors anyway.

Google just published its first official AI search optimization guide. No LLMS.txt needed. No special chunking. No AI-specific markup. Surprising! It looks like a lot of people were wasting time on these "strategies".

@hezhiyan7 这个确实是需要一定的积累才有几率出现, 虽然触发机制很模糊

早上好，朋友们！ 今天分享一个当你品牌网站得到Google 认可后，你会出现的一个东西：sitelink。效果就是搜索这个词之后，搜索结果页，下面会有一堆的链接。 有了sitelink之后，Google 认为这个品牌词对应的网站就是你的了，别人很难抢走你的排名。反之，你也很难抢走别人的排名，所以当你选择一个搜索打算做网站域名的时候，别人已经有了sitelink，你就可以考虑要放弃这个词了。 在拥有sitelink 之后，你也会有更多的点击，因为你在占据了第一页的绝大部分位置，吸引了用户绝大部分的注意力。同时用户也会觉得你的产品更专业，有Google的背书，信任让用户更愿意点击。 最后，怎么可以加速sitelink的出现呢，首先是首页需要有一定的权重、有用户搜索、点击你的品牌词、网站结构清晰，让Google能够清晰的理解你的网站。一些首页导航的页面，用户常点击使用的页面，也会更容易出现在sitelink 里面。

@DavidGQuaid LinkedIn doesn’t have comments? These salespeople would get called out so easily. Why the hell are they still everywhere on LinkedIn?

The wannabe King of GEO propaganda

No Schema, no E-E-A-T, no chunking, no programmatic pages — got it. I never thought they were some secret tricks or ranking hacks anyway, since they’re basically unmeasurable. So what is Google actually cracking down on?