Search results are noticeably poor and the top links are always obviously gamed.
Either Google have stopped combatting the gamed pages they claim they want to de-rank, or their execution does not match their intent at all.
Search has been getting worse from the SEO arms race for at least two decades. In the last few years this has accelerated due to machines producing more convincing slop.
Searches absolutely have not been surfacing the same quality of content as they did when Google first developed PageRank.
Of course when you start taking the browser apart you can heavily optimize such process.
At some point you could even get so frustrated with existing APIs..
Sullivan admits there may be “edge cases” where content chunking appears to work.
“Great. That’s what’s happening now, but tomorrow the systems may change,” he said.
Robots for thee but not for me.
I don't think that it is a good strategy, but it makes sense, especially for content that you want to be scraped (like product pages).
The SEO solution is to be in the list of results that the search engines return to the LLM. That list is relatively small.
You don't even get into the "LLM evaluation" stage unless you're one of the top X number of results for the LLM search. Being that the LLM search uses the search engines and not the LLM, it's fatal if you don't score high enough for the search engines. Whatever makes your results top hits for the search engine is what it will take to get the LLMs to notice you in the future.
ie - for now, OpenAI is dependent on the search engines when doing research. So it's actually the search engines that represent the gatekeeper.
Reminds me of that instagram caption: “No problem! Here's the information about the Mercedes CLR GTR:[…]”. Wouldn’t be surprised if every other website returned that too nowadays.
I’m excitingly awaiting what the next SEO exploit of the exploit of the exploit will be
I am not even kidding but there is a guy who viewed twitter, found that table salt Aka sodium chloride is "bad for health" and the medical study recommends that if thats the case then they should less the consumption
But he ends up asking chatgpt and it somehow recommends him the idea of sodium bromide instead of sodium chloride and it really ended up having him have so many hallucinations and so many other problems that the list goes on.
I found this from a video, definitely worth a watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNU
A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell
Table salt is dangerous if yuo intake really too much of it and also if you intake too less of it. Water is the same way so Moderation's they key
Everything in moderation.
Basically this guy starts with this fringe conspiracy theory belief that chloride ions are bad for you and asks a question to Chatgpt about alternatives to chloride ions and gets bromide as the next halogen.
We don't know this for certain, but when that video came out I tried it in ChatGPT and it this is what I could replicate about chloride bromide recommendations. It doesn't suggest eating sodium bromide but it will tell you bromide can fit where chloride is. The paper that discusses the case also mentions this.
> However, when we asked ChatGPT 3.5 what chloride can be replaced with, we also produced a response that included bromide. Though the reply stated that context matters, it did not provide a specific health warning, nor did it inquire about why we wanted to know, as we presume a medical professional would do. [0]
Of course this kind of bad question asking makes you fall short of the no free lunch theorem / XY Problem. Like if I ask you: "what is the best metal? Name one only." and you suggest "steel" then I reveal that actually I needed to conduct electricity so that is a terrible option.
Reference to this? https://old.reddit.com/r/google/comments/1cziil6/a_rock_a_da...
- he has 1955 pages of content all created between october 2025 and jan 2026
> So you end up with short paragraphs, sometimes with just one or two sentences
The average number of sentences per paragraph in the article is... 2.4
do not interpret their public statements as whole-truth confessions as that is most certainly never the case
You might have heard of it, it's called "SEO".
simultsop•5h ago
notpushkin•5h ago
Dylan16807•5h ago
You could maybe argue they're trying to make it harder for LLMs to replace search, but they're trying so hard to replace search with LLMs themselves and also they're right that people shouldn't be formatting articles that way.