Is traditional SEO still relevant in 2025, or are AI-driven strategies taking over? – SitePoint
With search engines evolving and AI tools like ChatGPT influencing content creation, it’s getting harder to tell which SEO practices truly matter. Are backlinks and keyword research still king, or is the game shifting entirely?
If you depend on organic search traffic, then soon all your SEO strategies will go to vain because google has started providing this “AI Overview” snippet on top of SERP which (in 99% of cases) answers the querer’s search phrase. For the querers, this is obviously good news in terms of efficiency, but for site owners this is nothing but impending doom.
There might be some exceptions such as niche blog topics where little information is available; the “AI Overview” couldn’t provide much details in such cases, the querer has to click the SERP and visit your web page.
Another strategy is to collect genuine back links from reputed social networking sites by indulging in organic activity yourself, a bit slower strategy and more work but ultimately more rewarding in long run.
If your site seeks to answer a specific question, and do so in a paragraph or two, then you will suffer from the AI searching.
If, however, your site actually has… oh whats the word i’m looking for… depth, and isnt just a vain scramble for thin-content link juicing… then the AI search will only help your site, because it will point at your site as the sources of the information, and thus you’ll be at the top of the search results for when someone is looking for more.
If your site is thin-content link-juice squeezing… good riddance?
Who decides whether a web page is filled with “depth” or just “vain scrambles for thin-content link juicing”? In the age of big tech capitalism, it’s easy to see how influential sites responsible for ad revenues and bottom lines of search engine companies will naturally tend to occupy the top rankings in SERP regardless of depth in their content, while lesser known sites can fail to rank despite having all the technical depth and intellectual rigor in them.
It’s understandable why this happens and the platforms and algorithms work this way, but let’s not pretend that the rankings are all purely organic, merit based and all.
Who decides whether a web page is filled with “depth” or just “vain scrambles for thin-content link juicing”?
If you have to ask that question about your site, then you’ve already answered it in everyone else’s minds.
In the age of big tech capitalism
You’re a very… “movie trailer psychology” sort of person. Every one of your posts is “In a world where…<insert overreaching global scale scenario when you’re talking about a single website>”. Maybe rather than trying to make posts about global issues, scale it down a bit? Not every problem is systematic.
but let’s not pretend that the rankings are all purely organic, merit based and all.
I… didnt say that? Also, please point out to me these rankings. I’d like to see numbers. Anywhere. Ever. (Hint: Google is not a “ranking” system.)
Are backlinks and keyword research still king
When exactly when did content abdicate the throne, I think I missed that.
google has started providing this “AI Overview” snippet on top of SERP which (in 99% of cases) answers the querer’s search phrase. For the querers, this is obviously good news in terms of efficiency, but for site owners this is nothing but impending doom.
That may depend upon the purpose and nature of your site. If the site is purly to provide information on a given subject, I can see how AI Overviews may steal your clicks away.
And I do hear a lot of take about this lately from “SEO people”, but working in e-commerce, the overview isn’t going to (physically) sell something, even if it influences what you buy, such as answering “What’s the best [insert product type] in 2025?”. To actually purchase the product, you still need to vist a retail site. So you need to work to make it your site they buy from.
Granted, e-commerce is not the entire web, but it’s one scenario whe the AI overview won’t satisfy someone’s needs.
Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled
