[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-google-more-links-ai-answers":3},{"message":4,"data":5},"Blogs retrieved successfully",{"blog":6,"latest_blogs":35},{"id":7,"author_id":8,"title":9,"slug":10,"content":11,"short_summary":12,"featured_image":13,"status":14,"meta_title":9,"meta_description":15,"canonical_url":16,"keywords":16,"blog_type":17,"is_featured":18,"word_count":19,"published_at":20,"created_at":21,"updated_at":22,"deleted_at":16,"author":23,"categories":28},384,9,"Google Is Putting More Links Back Into AI Answers","google-more-links-ai-answers","\u003Ch1>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Google Is Putting More Links Back Into AI Answers\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">For the past year, the loudest worry about AI search has been that it keeps people from ever leaving Google. The AI writes the answer, the user reads it, nobody clicks. Google’s own numbers say total traffic is stable, but plenty of publishers see it differently. So it’s notable that Google spent the spring adding links back in. It rolled out five new ways for AI Mode and AI Overviews to send people out to the web, and for anyone whose visibility depends on getting clicked, they open a few new doors.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">What Google added\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The updates, announced by Google’s search team in early May, all aim at the same thing, putting more useful links in front of people inside AI answers. Two of them are about digging deeper. At the end of many AI responses, you’ll now see a set of suggested articles for where to go next, pointing to in-depth pieces on different angles of your topic. And within the answer itself, links now show up next to the specific points they relate to, so a bullet about the terrain on a bike route can carry a link to a proper touring guide right beside it.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The other three are about knowing who you’re about to click. AI answers now pull in firsthand perspectives from forums, social posts, and public discussions, and they name the source, the person’s handle or the community it came from, so a tip on photographing the northern lights arrives tagged with the forum it’s from. Links to publications you subscribe to get a Subscribed label, so your own paid sources stand out. And on desktop, hovering over a link now shows a quick preview of the page, the site name and title, so you know where you’re headed before you commit the click. Google says it’s leaning on query fan-out behind all of this, fanning a single search into many to find the most relevant sites.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Good news, with a catch\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">For publishers and brands, more links in AI answers is good news on its face. More surfaces to appear on, more paths back to your site, more chances to be the source someone actually visits. It also reads as Google responding to the criticism it’s been fielding all year, that AI Overviews answer the question and strand the websites underneath.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Two caveats belong with the optimism, though. These are still rolling out and, in Google’s words, being tested and refined, so their reach today isn’t the reach they’ll have in six months. And nobody outside Google knows yet whether more link real estate actually translates into meaningfully more clicks. Even Barry Schwartz of Search Engine Land, who covers this closely, framed it as an open question of whether the changes go far enough. So it’s a move in the right direction for the open web, not a solved problem.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">How to be the link it shows\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Strip the features down and each one rewards something you can’t fake, which is where the work comes in. The suggested-articles slot goes to real depth. Google is explicitly linking to in-depth analyses and unique angles, which is the opposite of the thin, me-too content AI can already summarize on its own. If you want to be the where to go next link, you need the piece that actually goes further.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The firsthand-perspective slot rewards being present, and credibly, in real communities. Google is surfacing forum posts and discussions with the community named, so showing up as a trusted voice where your audience actually talks is now a direct path into AI answers. It comes from earned presence, the same thing \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"text-primary-blue-600 hover:underline\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fnobsmarketplace.com\u002Fdigital-pr\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">digital PR\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"> and real community engagement build, and it can’t be spun up overnight. The inline links reward specificity, content that cleanly answers a narrow point rather than circling a broad one. The hover preview rewards being recognizable, since a clear page title and a site people know make the difference between a hover and a click.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">None of that is a new playbook. It’s the familiar one, aimed at new slots. Depth, a real presence in your space, clarity, and the kind of authority that earns \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"text-primary-blue-600 hover:underline\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fnobsmarketplace.com\u002Flink-building\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">links from credible sites\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"> are what put you in these placements, the same way they’ve always decided who ranks.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">What the move really signals\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The bigger takeaway isn’t really about five features. Google is signaling that it wants AI answers to point outward, to send people to the sources and voices behind the summary. Whether that fully offsets the clicks AI absorbs is still an open question. But the sites positioned to win the new links are the ones that were already doing the durable work, going deep, showing up where it counts, and earning the trust that makes Google want to point at them in the first place.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","Google rolled out five new ways for AI Mode and AI Overviews to link out to the web, from suggested articles to firsthand advice and inline source links. It opens more citation opportunities, though the traffic effect is unproven. Earning those links rewards depth, firsthand presence, and authority.","https:\u002F\u002Fwebsite-cdn.nobsmarketplace.com\u002Fuploads\u002Ffeatured-images\u002Fmore-links-ai-nobs-20260710061625-nyg7hNan.webp","published","Google added five new ways for AI Mode and AI Overviews to link out to the web. What each one surfaces, and how to be the source it sends people to.",null,"blog",false,797,"2026-07-10T06:00:43.000000Z","2026-07-10T06:02:03.000000Z","2026-07-10T06:16:33.000000Z",{"id":8,"name":24,"email":25,"about":16,"avatar":26,"created_at":27,"updated_at":16,"deleted_at":16},"Rasit Cakir","rasit@nobsmarketplace.com","https:\u002F\u002Fwebsite-cdn.nobsmarketplace.com\u002Frasit.webp","2026-01-26T11:10:22.000000Z",[29],{"id":30,"name":31,"slug":32,"created_at":33,"updated_at":33,"deleted_at":16,"pivot":34},3,"SEO","seo","2025-10-26T11:10:22.000000Z",{"blog_id":7,"category_id":30},[36,41,58,72],{"id":7,"author_id":8,"title":9,"slug":10,"content":11,"short_summary":12,"featured_image":13,"status":14,"meta_title":9,"meta_description":15,"canonical_url":16,"keywords":16,"blog_type":17,"is_featured":18,"word_count":19,"published_at":20,"created_at":21,"updated_at":22,"deleted_at":16,"author":37,"categories":38},{"id":8,"name":24,"email":25,"about":16,"avatar":26,"created_at":27,"updated_at":16,"deleted_at":16},[39],{"id":30,"name":31,"slug":32,"created_at":33,"updated_at":33,"deleted_at":16,"pivot":40},{"blog_id":7,"category_id":30},{"id":42,"author_id":8,"title":43,"slug":44,"content":45,"short_summary":46,"featured_image":47,"status":14,"meta_title":43,"meta_description":48,"canonical_url":16,"keywords":16,"blog_type":17,"is_featured":49,"word_count":50,"published_at":51,"created_at":52,"updated_at":53,"deleted_at":16,"author":54,"categories":55},382,"Ranking Yourself #1 Now Works Against You","self-promotional-listicles-backfire","\u003Ch1>Ranking Yourself #1 Now Works Against You\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>For a couple of years, one content tactic delivered like almost nothing else. You write a blog post titled something like best CRM software, rank your own product at number one, and watch it pull traffic in search and citations in AI answers. It worked so well that companies stopped writing one and started writing hundreds. Then, sometime around late January, it started to turn on the people using it.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>The tactic that curdled\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>The first sign showed up in organic search. A couple of weeks after December’s core update wrapped, Barry Schwartz of Search Engine Roundtable flagged a wave of ranking volatility that Google never confirmed as an update. Lily Ray, VP of SEO and AI Search at the agency Amsive, went digging through the sites that got hit and found a pattern too clean to ignore. Around January 20, dozens of sites that had published self-promotional listicles at scale, some with hundreds or thousands of articles naming their own brand the best, started losing visibility fast. The declines often began in the blog or guide folders where those articles lived, then bled across the whole domain. They got worse during May’s core update.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>Two things are important to keep straight here, though. Google didn’t ban listicles, and it didn’t announce any of this. Ray and other analysts read the pattern as Google’s reviews systems getting stricter about self-serving content produced at scale, not a switch someone flipped. And self-promotional listicles were rarely the only problem on these sites. Most were also mass-producing AI-generated pages, comparison and alternative pages for every competitor, and swapping last year’s dates for this year’s with no real updates. The listicles were the clearest tell, not the whole disease.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>When your list recommends your rivals\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>The sharper finding came from AI Overviews. Ray ran 100 B2B best-software queries through Google’s AI Overviews at three points between April and June, pulling the actual answers and the sources each one cited. What she found is the kind of thing that should make any brand rethink the tactic. When a company’s own best listicle was cited in the answer, that company was left out of the actual recommendation 69% of the time.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>Think about what that means. Google reads your article, uses it to build the answer, and then recommends someone else. Often it recommends the very competitors you named in your own list. The logic is almost fair. You can’t say much of value by calling yourself the best, but the moment you name a rival as a strong option, you’ve handed Google a signal it can trust, because you had no reason to flatter them. So a listicle built to promote you ends up doing free promotion for the companies you were trying to beat. You paid to write the ad, and it sells the other guy.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>Google trusts the outside voice\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>None of this is Google picking on brands for sport. It reflects where AI answers are pulling their information from now. For best queries, Ray found Google leaning heavily on third-party and user-generated sources, with Reddit citations climbing sharply and sites like Forbes Advisor and YouTube among the most-cited for these searches. Real opinions from people with no stake in the sale carry more weight than a company’s verdict on itself.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>There’s a reason this pattern makes sense. A brand ranking itself first is closer to an advertisement than a review, and Google’s own guidance on high-quality reviews asks for first-hand testing, evidence, and a real methodology. Almost none of these self-promotional listicles could clear that bar, because the companies writing them had rarely used, let alone tested, the competitors they were ranking. The AI systems are getting better at telling a real assessment from a sales pitch, and they’re routing trust toward the sources that read as impartial.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>The mention you can’t write yourself\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>So where does that leave a brand that wants to show up when someone asks for the best in its category? Not by handing itself the trophy. The path that survives all of this is the one that was always more durable anyway, earning a place in lists other people write. When an independent publication, a respected reviewer, or a real customer names you among the best, that carries the exact credibility your own listicle can’t manufacture, and it’s the kind of mention Google and its AI systems are increasingly built to reward. Earning that kind of mention is the whole point of \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"text-primary-blue-600 hover:underline\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fnobsmarketplace.com\u002Fdigital-pr\">\u003Cspan>digital PR\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Cspan> and editorial coverage, getting other credible voices to vouch for you instead of vouching for yourself.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>The self-promotional listicle isn’t dead, exactly. It still gets cited, it still shows up. But the returns have flipped from asset to liability for anyone running it at scale, and in the answers that increasingly decide who gets found, calling yourself the best is now an invitation for Google to recommend someone else.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","Self-promotional best-of listicles, where a brand ranks itself number one, have turned into a liability. Google demoted sites that scaled them starting in January, and Lily Ray’s research shows AI Overviews often cite a brand’s own listicle while recommending its competitors. Earned third-party coverage is the durable path.","https:\u002F\u002Fwebsite-cdn.nobsmarketplace.com\u002Fuploads\u002Ffeatured-images\u002Flisticles-backfire-nobs-1-20260709143914-SJbhhlmX.webp","Google demoted sites that scaled self-promotional best-of listicles, and in AI Overviews, citing your own list often recommends your rivals instead.",true,810,"2026-07-09T14:21:26.000000Z","2026-07-09T14:22:14.000000Z","2026-07-09T14:39:21.000000Z",{"id":8,"name":24,"email":25,"about":16,"avatar":26,"created_at":27,"updated_at":16,"deleted_at":16},[56],{"id":30,"name":31,"slug":32,"created_at":33,"updated_at":33,"deleted_at":16,"pivot":57},{"blog_id":42,"category_id":30},{"id":59,"author_id":8,"title":60,"slug":61,"content":62,"short_summary":16,"featured_image":63,"status":14,"meta_title":60,"meta_description":64,"canonical_url":16,"keywords":16,"blog_type":17,"is_featured":49,"word_count":65,"published_at":66,"created_at":67,"updated_at":67,"deleted_at":16,"author":68,"categories":69},381,"How Google Knows If Its AI Search Is Working","how-google-grades-ai-search","\u003Ch1>How Google Knows If Its AI Search Is Working\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>Sundar Pichai spent a good chunk of his recent Decoder interview batting away the idea that AI is about to strangle web traffic. Buried in that defense was a more useful admission, one about how Google actually decides whether its AI search is working. The measure he pointed to has nothing to do with clicks or the traffic Google sends out. Google grades its AI search on user satisfaction, tracked the same way it has for 25 years.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>The signal Google trusts\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>In Pichai’s telling, the great thing about search is that user satisfaction is easy to measure. Google has spent 25 years learning to read it, correlating what users do with whether the product is actually getting better. He was careful to say this runs on the long term, not a quick snapshot, which is why Google leans on extended studies rather than day-to-day swings. If an experience is bad, he said, it shows up in the metrics, and Google course-corrects.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>The signals underneath are the familiar ones. How long people stay engaged, whether they come back, and whether they bounce straight back to the results page looking for something better. Google has judged regular search this way for years, and Pichai’s point was that AI search gets held to the same bar. AI Mode and AI Overviews live or die by whether people are satisfied with what they got, measured in behavior over time.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>There’s no dial for it\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>For anyone used to optimizing toward a target, this one is slippery, because there’s nothing to optimize toward. You can’t tune a page for an aggregate, long-term satisfaction score. There’s no field for it, no schema, no checklist. The only input you control is whether the person who landed on your page is glad they did. Did you answer the thing they came for, clearly enough that they didn’t need to go hunting again? Nothing else moves the needle, and that’s deliberately hard to fake.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>Pichai added a wrinkle that cuts the other way for publishers. Because AI answers can be shaped by the user, through follow-ups and how they phrase things, the traffic that comes out the other side is less predictable than the old model. Two people asking about the same topic can be steered to different sources. So even doing everything right, the referral you earn from AI search is a looser, less repeatable thing than a fixed ranking used to be.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>The blind spot in the metric\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>There’s a hole in this that Pichai skated past. Engagement and return behavior show how people act, not how they feel. Someone can read an AI answer, accept it, and move on without ever realizing it was shallow or subtly wrong. To Google’s metrics, that looks like a satisfied user. Nothing bounced, nobody complained, the numbers stay green. Whether the answer was actually good is a separate question the behavior can’t fully see.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>That gap gets riskier as AI search changes fast. Behavioral signals are slow and correlational by design, built to smooth out noise over long studies. Smoothing over long studies is a reasonable way to tune a mature product like ten blue links. It’s a shakier way to govern a system rewriting itself every few months, where a confidently wrong answer can satisfy the metric and mislead the user at the same time. Google’s grading system is real, but it’s measuring a proxy, and the proxy has limits.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan>The work that satisfies either way\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan>For everyone doing the actual work, the takeaway lands in a reassuring place. There’s no trick that satisfies Google’s satisfaction signal, because the signal is only people being glad they found you. You get there by answering real questions well, with enough depth and honesty that a reader doesn’t need a second opinion. And the blind spot is an argument for the same thing, not against it. In a system that can’t fully tell a good answer from a confident one, being reliably, checkably right is what earns the return visits and the \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"text-primary-blue-600 hover:underline\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fnobsmarketplace.com\u002Flink-building\">\u003Cspan>references from credible sites\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Cspan> that outlast any single algorithm. The metric may be a proxy. Useful, trustworthy work is how you win it anyway.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","https:\u002F\u002Fwebsite-cdn.nobsmarketplace.com\u002Fuploads\u002Ffeatured-images\u002Fai-facts-wrong-nobs-20260709133953-KDcU4vEr.webp","In his Decoder interview, Sundar Pichai said Google judges its AI search the way it always has, by long-term user satisfaction measured through engagement and r",692,"2026-07-09T13:38:58.000000Z","2026-07-09T13:39:58.000000Z",{"id":8,"name":24,"email":25,"about":16,"avatar":26,"created_at":27,"updated_at":16,"deleted_at":16},[70],{"id":30,"name":31,"slug":32,"created_at":33,"updated_at":33,"deleted_at":16,"pivot":71},{"blog_id":59,"category_id":30},{"id":73,"author_id":8,"title":74,"slug":75,"content":76,"short_summary":77,"featured_image":78,"status":14,"meta_title":74,"meta_description":79,"canonical_url":16,"keywords":16,"blog_type":17,"is_featured":18,"word_count":80,"published_at":81,"created_at":82,"updated_at":83,"deleted_at":16,"author":84,"categories":85},380,"Google Dropped FAQ Rich Results, Not FAQ Schema","google-faq-rich-results-removed","\u003Ch1>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Google Dropped FAQ Rich Results, Not FAQ Schema\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">If your FAQ dropdowns vanished from Google over the past few weeks, you saw it correctly. On May 7, Google removed FAQ rich results from search, the expandable question-and-answer panels that ran under listings and grabbed a few extra lines of space. It happened with no blog post and no fanfare, only a note added to a developer doc. Half the industry immediately declared FAQ schema dead. The other half decided it was now a secret weapon for AI search. Both are wrong, and the gap between them is where the useful read lives.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The display feature died, not the markup\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The confusion comes from two things sharing one name. FAQ rich results were a display feature, the visible Q&A accordion on the results page. FAQPage schema is the markup underneath, a bit of code that tells search engines a section of your page is structured as questions and answers. Google retired the first. The second is untouched and still a valid \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"text-primary-blue-600 hover:underline\" href=\"http:\u002F\u002FSchema.org\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Schema.org\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"> type.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The removal runs on a schedule. The rich results stopped showing on May 7. In June, Google drops the FAQ report in Search Console and pulls FAQ support from the Rich Results Test. In August, the Search Console API stops returning FAQ data, so any dashboard or export pulling those numbers goes quiet after that. And this time it reaches everyone. Back in 2023, Google had already cut FAQ rich results down to a small set of government and health sites. May’s change removes that last exception, so no category still qualifies.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">None of this should read as a shock, because Google has been doing it for years. HowTo rich results came off desktop in 2023. Last year Google pulled seven more structured data types out of search appearance in one go. The company keeps trimming visual features that got scaled by SEO tools and stopped reliably describing the page. The markup spec survives each time, and the display feature doesn’t.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The two overreactions to skip\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Start with the crowd ripping FAQ schema out of their templates. There’s no reason to. Google has said plainly that unused structured data causes no problems for search, and FAQPage is still valid markup. Pulling it out is busywork, and if the schema accurately describes real questions and answers on the page, removing it only strips out context a machine could have used. Leave it where it’s honest.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Now the other crowd, the one relabeling FAQ schema as an AI Overviews cheat code. That overstates it. Google’s own AI guidance is explicit that no special schema is required to show up in AI Overviews or AI Mode, and that any structured data you use should match the visible text. AI systems pull from clean question-and-answer content whether the markup is present or not. The evidence that the schema itself earns you citations is thin and mixed. What is confirmed is smaller and comes from elsewhere. Microsoft has said schema helps its Copilot models understand content, and other crawlers like Bing’s and Perplexity’s do read structured data. So keeping clean markup is a reasonable low-cost bet across those surfaces. Calling it a Google AI lever is not.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The schema was never the work\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">Step back and the deprecation clarifies something the SEO world blurred for years. The schema was never doing the work; the content was. FAQ markup told Google how to draw an accordion. It never made your answers correct, useful, or the ones an AI system would choose to quote. Those come from the writing itself, from actually answering the questions people ask about your topic, in plain, self-contained chunks a reader or a model can lift cleanly.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">So the move this week is boring and correct. Keep the FAQ sections that actually help someone, and make the answers strong in the visible text, not buried in markup. Drop FAQ blocks you only ever added to game the accordion, along with any schema pointing at content that no longer exists. And before June, export your FAQ rich result report from Search Console with the last quarter of click data, so you have a baseline if you ever want to measure what the removal cost you.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">What outlasts a display widget\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">The bigger lesson runs past this one feature. Chasing a display widget was always a fragile way to earn visibility, because Google gives those out and takes them back on its own schedule. What it doesn’t hand out or claw back is the standing you build by being useful and by being cited. Strong content answers the questions people actually have. Earned coverage and \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"text-primary-blue-600 hover:underline\" href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fnobsmarketplace.com\u002Flink-building\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\">links from credible sites\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fa>\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);\"> tell Google and its AI systems you’re a source to trust. Those survive every deprecation notice, because no one can switch them off from a developer doc.\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>","Google removed FAQ rich results from all sites on May 7, ending a feature that started shrinking in 2023. The FAQPage schema itself stays valid, and the change makes clear the markup was never the value. Clean, useful Q&A content was always the thing doing the work.","https:\u002F\u002Fwebsite-cdn.nobsmarketplace.com\u002Fuploads\u002Ffeatured-images\u002Ffaq-removed-nobs-1-20260710070330-oJHKuZyJ.webp","Google removed FAQ rich results from Search on May 7, across all sites, with reporting sunsetting through August. Why to keep the FAQPage schema anyway.",791,"2026-07-06T10:44:23.000000Z","2026-07-06T10:46:04.000000Z","2026-07-10T07:03:36.000000Z",{"id":8,"name":24,"email":25,"about":16,"avatar":26,"created_at":27,"updated_at":16,"deleted_at":16},[86],{"id":30,"name":31,"slug":32,"created_at":33,"updated_at":33,"deleted_at":16,"pivot":87},{"blog_id":73,"category_id":30}]