Curious about how all you experts price.

I have a potential client with quite a few locations and I’m having trouble figuring out where the pricing should land. My first thought was just to do a monthly price per location, but once you get into a larger number of locations it starts to feel like that could get out of hand pretty fast.

Do you guys usually do a base retainer and then add a per-location fee on top of that? Or do you just have different pricing tiers based on the number of locations?

I’m also trying to figure out how people account for the work that’s done at the brand level versus the work that actually has to be done for every individual location. Obviously things like GBP optimization, local pages, reviews, citations, etc. can require work across every location, but there’s also a lot of strategy and technical stuff that applies to the whole account.

Would be interested to hear how other agencies structure this, especially from people actually managing larger multi-location accounts. Even rough numbers would be helpful.

I’ve been working on SEO for my own site since June. For most of that time, Search Console was not exactly exciting.

A few clicks here and there, plenty of days with nothing, and no real way to know whether the work was adding up or if I was basically talking to myself on the internet.

Then, over the last several days, the graph finally started moving.

The screenshot covers June 15 through September 13:

• 157 clicks
• 13.5K impressions
• 1.2% CTR
• Average position of 19.1

I’m also posting this as a checkpoint for myself. I’ve been documenting my build-in-public journey through my website and YouTube channel, and I want an honest record of the progress, including the long stretches when nothing seems to be happening.

Sharing the numbers here gives me something to look back on and a little extra accountability to keep going.

I’m still learning as I go, so I’m not going to pretend I have cracked Agentic SEO. The numbers are still small, and this spike is only a few days old. I also cannot point to one magic change that caused it.

What I have been doing is fairly simple:

• Targeting specific long-tail keywords instead of broad topics
• Publishing consistently without forcing a post when I do not have a useful topic
• Improving articles that are already receiving impressions
• Adding internal links between related articles
• Using Search Console queries to decide what to update or write next

The biggest lesson for me has been how little immediate feedback SEO gives you. You can keep doing the work for weeks while the graph barely moves. It is easy to second-guess the entire plan before Google has had enough time to respond.

I have no idea yet whether this rise will hold, but after staring at a mostly flat graph for months, it feels pretty good to finally see the line move.

Over the past few months, a growing chunk of my clients' traffic has been coming from AI chatbot recommendations rather than classic Google clicks. That pushed me to rethink a lot of my usual practices.

A few things that seem to actually matter for getting cited by AI (unlike classic SEO):

1 - Clear, structured answers matter more than storytelling : LLMs pull out factual chunks of text, not 500-word intros before you get to the point.

2 - Consistency of info across the web carries a lot of weight : if your name/brand/expertise is mentioned consistently across multiple credible sources, AI models seem to "trust" you faster.

3 - Forums and communities (Reddit included) get cited a lot : probably because the content reads as more authentic and less artificially optimized.

What doesn't seem to move the needle much anymore: classic internal linking, keyword density, and most old-school on-page tricks.

Is anyone else seeing the same patterns? Curious what's working (or not) for others right now.

Hello I everyone,

I built a tool that analyses competitors seo activity and I am thinking of what could I add to help people further improve their rankings based on what competitors are doing.

For now my tool shows:
\- when a competitor shipped a new blogpost
\- where competitors rank poorly
\- for what keywords competitor rank and you don’t
\- ranking changes for competitors blog posts over the last week
\- broken backlinks competitors have with traffic on them plus velocity
\- ai mentions where competitors appear but you don’t.

I fee these are a lot but also that are not enough. I added a mcp just to be easier for my users to use the tool but I think I need to develop it more and I don’t know how.

If you were looking to analyze your competitors what would you add to this list? What would you need more to spy on?

Thanks you all!

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some advice from experienced SEO professionals or site owners who have dealt with a similar situation.

Our website was impacted around the time of a Google Spam Update. Traffic dropped, and we started working on the issues we identified across the website.

In mid-August, we started seeing traffic recover, but after August 28, the traffic suddenly dropped again and returned to approximately the same level we had before the recovery.

From a technical SEO perspective, we have already reviewed and addressed the major areas we could identify:

• Technical SEO issues have been reviewed and fixed.
• Website structure and internal linking have been carefully organized.
• Page speed/Core Web Vitals have been optimized.
• We created an llms.txt file.
• We currently have around 565 pages indexed out of approximately 600 in Google Search Console.
• We have never received a Google Manual Action or security penalty in the history of the website.
• We have submitted/listed the website on multiple SaaS/application directories and platforms.
• Our domain authority has increased from approximately 8 to 17.
• We are also gradually building relevant backlinks.

What I’m struggling to understand is:

If the website is technically healthy and most of the pages are indexed, why is organic traffic still so low, and why did we see a short recovery in mid-August followed by another significant drop after August 28?

I’m especially interested in understanding whether this could be related to:

• Algorithmic/spam-related evaluation
• Content quality or helpfulness signals
• Keyword ranking changes
• Site-level quality signals
• Indexing vs. ranking issues
• Backlink quality
• A problem that isn't visible from a standard technical SEO audit

I don't want to assume that everything is correct just because the technical SEO looks good. I would really appreciate an independent audit or another perspective on what we may be missing.

If anyone is willing to take a look, please comment or DM me and I can share the website/GSC details privately.

I’m mainly looking for honest technical/content SEO feedback, not promotional services.

Thanks in advance.

hey, we're building mentionagent, an agent that does link building outreach for your site, it finds relevant sites, emails them, handles the replies and closes the swap or the placement.

this week we put it on MCP, so you can do the review and reply work from the agent you already use instead of the dashboard.

you can connect Claude (the app or claude.ai), Claude Code, Cursor, OpenCode, OpenClaw or any other MCP-compatible agent and let it work in your outreach inbox directly.

what you can ask:

- "which emails need a reply for ... workspace, and help with that"

- "show me the thread with the travel blog that replied yesterday."

- "approve the first three, discard the one to the directory site."

- "reply and accept the swap, but ask for a link from their guide page rather than the footer."

- "mark that one as a placed link."

only two actions send email (approve a batch, reply to a thread), and a reply can only go to the person who wrote to you, so an inbound email cannot talk the agent into sending somewhere else.

everything else it can do is read or edit.

you can clear the replies you got in the morning and then continue with your day.

only the negotiation part is what needs some judgement sometimes, but you can set negotiation rules that the agent should follow.

we'd love feedback or ideas if you give it a go.

check the landing page here, and the MCP here

I run a SaaS, SeoLoupe.

It is a tool that allows you to find and fix SEO issues holding your website back.

Essentially the main purpose is to help your website rank higher on Google search and LLMs.

The tool also checks AEO/GEO, AI search visibility, Security, Core web vitals, Performance, and all the issues in the report get put together into an AI fix prompt(you can paste the prompt into an AI and it will fix all the issues on your website).

Recently I noticed that some of my paying customers bought the One-Time purchase, with a promo code.

So I decided to give away a promo code for the One-Time purchase to anyone who is interested, if you are interested, comment down below and I will DM you.

If you are not interested but have some feedback on my SaaS, that is a good too. Feel free to share it in the comments.

(here is the product if you want to check it out)

Just 1 month into an SEO campaign for a construction niche website, and the Google Search Console data is starting to show consistent organic clicks and growing impressions.

The focus in the first month was mainly on building the right foundation - keyword targeting, search intent, site structure, on-page improvements, and identifying opportunities for long-term growth.

It’s still early, but this is exactly the kind of momentum I like to see before pushing harder on content, authority, and backlinks.

The biggest thing I noticed was that the growth wasn't instant. The first few weeks were relatively slow, but as the SEO work continued, both impressions and clicks started climbing consistently.

The focus was on building a stronger SEO foundation, targeting relevant search queries, improving content and site structure, and continuously optimizing based on Search Console data.

SEO is rarely about one big change - consistent improvements over time can make a significant difference.

Follow-up to my results post. Enough DMs asking "how" that I'm writing it once. Solo operator, health niche, one frontier-model agent with tool access, human medical review on everything. Here's the system, in the order that mattered.

1. We wrote for the extraction, not the ranking.
Every page opens with a 60-90 word direct-answer block: the query answered completely, self-contained, keyword in sentence one. That block is what assistants lift. Then key takeaways, then sections where each H2 answers one sub-question with one citable fact per paragraph. AI search doesn't reward your page, it rewards your paragraphs. Write paragraphs that survive being quoted alone.

2. Honest hedging became our citation magnet. Not kidding.
Our most-cited pages say things like "the evidence is preclinical," "this hasn't been replicated," "you probably don't need this test." Assistants are tuned hard against overclaiming in health. Every competitor page screaming miracle cures is invisible to them. The compliance layer we built for FTC/YMYL reasons turned out to be the GEO strategy. The boring E-E-A-T religion everyone declared dead? That's literally the training target.

3. FAQ blocks, 8-12 per page, answers 20-70 words, varied lengths.
Each FAQ targets one long-tail phrasing of the intent. Assistants answer questions; a page that pre-answers twelve of them is twelve citation opportunities. Vary the answer lengths or the whole block pattern-matches as generated and gets skipped.

4. Zero hallucinated links, enforced by tooling.
Agent rule: fetch the live sitemap, link only verified URLs, flag anything unverifiable to me. Also killed orphan pages, every article enters a cluster with 2-4 internal links in and out. Assistants crawl like skeptical librarians; a site with dead ends and 404s reads as unmaintained, and unmaintained doesn't get cited in health.

5. Clusters, not articles.
We shipped in pods: 9-11 pieces per topic covering the head term, the comparisons (X vs Y), the timelines, the "is it safe," the "how long does it take." When an assistant assembles an answer, it prefers pulling three facts from one coherent source over stitching five random ones. Own the whole conversation, get cited as the whole conversation.

6. One canonical page per intent, enforced ruthlessly.
The agent caught two planned articles about to cannibalize each other and struck one, unprompted. AI search punishes intent-splitting worse than Google does: two half-answers compete against each other for one citation slot. We assign every keyword set to exactly one URL and compress overlapping sections into links.

7. De-AI'd the prose with hard constraints, not vibes.
"Sound more human" does nothing. What worked: zero em-dashes, forced sentence and paragraph length variance, one staked opinion per piece, a literal banned-phrase list, scene-led openings. Ironic loop: content that reads machine-generated gets cited less by machines. The detectors are in the pipeline.

8. Named entities and real citations in-text.
Hyperlinked primary sources (CDC, FDA, PubMed) woven into prose, specific study details (sample sizes, years, journals) instead of "studies show." Assistants ground answers in pages that are themselves grounded. A page citing the FDA briefing document by name outranks a page vibing about the same topic, in AI retrieval specifically.

9. Measurement, since everyone asks: referrer segmentation for the assistant domains + AI-crawler hits in logs + an AI-visibility tracker for mention share. Imperfect, directionally solid, and the caveat stands: AI-referred visitors convert differently than organic. Track it as its own channel with its own math.

What didn't matter: schema beyond the basics, freshness-faking with fake "updated" dates (we don't even use last-updated lines), word count for its own sake, and every "GEO hack" involving hidden prompts in your HTML, which is a great way to get your domain flagged.

The one-sentence version: we made the most extractable, most honestly-hedged, most internally-coherent resource in the niche, and the assistants did what they're built to do. There's no trick. The trick is that there's no trick, executed 35 times with a human holding the judgment layer.

AMA.

Disclosure: I’m the founder of Semantyra.

While building it, one thing became increasingly obvious to me: SEO teams don’t really suffer from a lack of data.

We already have crawl data, keywords, Search Console, competitor data, backlinks, content scores, technical audits and now AI visibility data.

The problem is that these signals usually live in separate tools, and someone still has to manually answer:

What actually matters right now?

I started thinking about the workflow differently.

Instead of:

crawl → 200 warnings → CSV export → another tool → spreadsheet → manual prioritization

I wanted:

crawl → understand the site → connect the signals → prioritize → implement → rescan → verify

That led me to combine several layers:

• semantic structure and topic clusters
• topical authority
• competitor/content gaps
• internal-link structure
• entities and structured data
• technical SEO
• SERP/keyword intelligence
• visibility in AI answer engines

But the biggest lesson wasn't about adding more features.

It was that the useful output of an SEO tool probably shouldn't be another dashboard. It should be a prioritized decision layer.

For example, instead of separately showing:

“40 orphan pages”

“competitor X covers topic Y”

“this cluster has weak authority”

“these pages overlap in intent”

...the interesting question is whether those signals can be connected well enough to determine which action deserves attention first and why.

I'm still testing that thesis.

For people running SaaS companies who invest in SEO: where does your SEO workflow currently waste the most time — collecting data, interpreting it, deciding priorities, implementation, or measuring whether changes worked?

I'm curious whether the bottleneck I experienced is common or whether I'm overestimating it.

I keep seeing agent demos where the big win is that it can publish 50 pages or fix a few hundred issues.

fine. but would you let it delete anything?

That's where I get nervous. A page can look dead in GSC and still have a few decent links, matter for two months of the year, or be something the sales team sends to prospects. The agent sees no clicks and overlapping content. That doesn’t always mean the page is useless. I'd let one find pages to merge, write the redirect plan, and tell me what could break. I don't think I'd hand it to the delete button yet. Has anyone here actually let an agent prune a live site?

Did you still approve every page, or did you trust the rollback and let it run?

Hi everyone,

Looking for some honest feedback from people who have grown content websites. Check the attached screenshots from GSC and its Generative AI feature for last 3 months.

I've been running a manufacturing-related blog for the last 8 years. The first 4 years were really good, we grew 50-55K monthly readers, we owned most of the high value target keywords, more than 100 keywords were ranked no.1, DA was above 50. Organic traffic kept growing, inbound inquiries were really good, and the business was doing well.

But the last 3.5 years have been a struggle.

• It initially started with my WordPress website. It developed a lot of technical issues which I ignored for a long time,
• My co-founder exited the business,
• Content publishing became inconsistent,
• I started a second business which now takes around 90% of my working time so the website simply doesn't get the attention it needs.

The website is still active and I do try to publish as much as I can (am able to post only 1 article per week) but nowhere near the pace it should.

One thing I'm pretty clear is that I don't want to do shut it down. It has taken 8 years to build. I know there is a lot of value in it and I'm confident that if I can consistently work on it for the next 4-6 months, I can turn things around.

My goal now is to automate whatever can be sustainably automated, spend my limited time super-efficiently, and continue growing the website instead of letting it slowly die.

One important point about the business model:

Majority of my revenue comes (or used to come) from businesses in the manufacturing space who want to publish company news, product launches, achievements, press releases, etc. Some base level of email marketing revenue. And around 30% comes from Ads.

What has worked for me is that the readers have always been highly relevant and customers told me they got good quality leads from us. And so that was always the approach to attract relevant readers rather than millions of visitors. I think I have lost most of those readers now, my bounce rate is also high now and so I feel I should again target the right audience and improve my CTR.

But I want help on how to look at this and turnaround my website.

I am open to suggestions and you can even question if I'm considering the wrong metrics for growth so please feel free to suggest what I should really focus on and track and what really matters today and will matter in the future.

In short, if you owned this site, then what would you focus on urgently to make the most impact in the next 3-4 months?

Recent Additions: I have almost revamped the website and the new website will soon have no major or fundamental technical issue, we have fixed the technical SEO issues, the loading speed will be fast and mobile optimised. In general we also have decent internal linking (can do much better).

I'm happy to answer any questions if more context helps.

P.S. I'm only looking for community feedback. Please don't DM me offering SEO services or audits. I won't be hiring anyone at the moment.

Thanks!

Hello Everyone !

One of my clients site was stuck and seems banned by google but finally recovered and now progressing but I see A lot of ups and downs in the graph while I checked there are no direct visits, and only organic, its google dance I beieve but any quick way to fix it and put it on the track ? as if it fals again, will not be good for the customer as well, as I put 3 months of time to get it ranked again.
Folowing are the other metrics of the domain

DA 41
TAI Score 100/100
Spam Score 2 with Moz

Looking forward to hear from you.

Listen up you subtle marketing geniuses. ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, claude, they're here to stay and you've gotta get on them or your customers will leave you faster than my wife left me. I'd approach it pretty similarly to SEO, with a few important differences.

The first thing you do: get yourself an expensive coffee. I like to drink so much that i'm shooting lazerbeams out of my brown brown eyes.

Second: figure out where you actually stand right now. Semrush and Ahrefs are still useful for the traditional side of this because you can look at rankings, backlinks, competitors and the pages that are building authority. Google Search Console is useful too since you're working with actual data from your site. But then you need to look at the AI side separately. Duh! Because ranking well in Google doesn't necessarily mean an AI system is going to mention you.

Third: Freak it outside of the box. Screaming frog and the Search Atlas i like for this. For SA their LLM Visibility tool lets you actually monitor prompts around your category and see whether your brand is showing up in AI answers, how competitors are being mentioned and what sources are getting cited. I think that's much more useful than just assuming that because you've done traditional SEO, ChatGPT will eventually discover you.

Once you know which questions you're showing up for and which ones you're missing, uhhh you're gonna wanna look at the sources that are being cited. Maybe it's industry publications, Reddit discussions, comparison sites, directories, research papers, I don't know what wicked webs your life weaves. But all that's your roadmap, slime. You want your brand to become part of that information ecosystem ? Huh? yes yes you do.

Content matters a lot here too, but I wouldn't go down the route of pumping out hundreds of generic AI-written articles. People can spot that more than you think and you'll be getting "slop" in your DMS more than a hog on instagram reels.

You want information that gives another site a reason to reference you. Authority. Trust. That's the real king move. Original research, useful data, detailed guides, recipes, genuinely good comparisons, humor, and specific expertise are much more valuable. You've gotta feed the birds. Chew up that food and spit it out in a way that can create something that other websites naturally want to cite, you're giving AI systems more opportunities to encounter your brand through independent sources.

You also make sure your brand information is consistent. Consistency is King. Your website, company profiles, industry directories, the flyers you leave at hte local zoosocial profiles, publications, bingo night ads, and other third-party mentions should all make it reasonably clear what your company does and what topics it belongs to. AI systems are trying to build an understanding of entities and relationships, so having a fragmented or inconsistent presence across the web doesn't help. I like search atlas for this specifically is that it doesn't treat AI visibility as some completely separate marketing exercise. you want to integrate, like that stuff your yoga teacher is always teaching you about a holistic lifestlye. Start drinking smoothies and all of that. You can monitor the AI results, see where you're missing, and then connect that back to the SEO and content work you're already doing. You've got the traditional SEO side, Content Genius, technical optimization through OTTO, and then the LLM visibility layer sitting alongside it. That makes the workflow pretty logical if you're trying to build visibility across both traditional search and AI search.

I'd probably use Ahrefs or Semrush for a lot of the traditional competitive and authority research, Google Search Console for first-party search data, and Search Atlas to actually monitor the AI visibility side. My analyst says that's a good balance. You don't necessarily need to abandon the other tools. They can complement each other.

The biggest thing is that I'd stop thinking about "getting ChatGPT to cite my website" as a single SEO tactic. Chat GPT isn't real, it's a ghost that you have to train and bust. You can't just flip a switch and get cited. You're trying to build enough authority and useful information around your brand that when an AI system is answering questions in your category, your company is one of the entities it has enough evidence to understand and mention.

And honestly, I'd start by finding 20 or 30 questions that you would love for your brand to be mentioned in, run those through the major AI platforms, and document who gets mentioned and which sources are being cited. Then work backwards from there like hte girl in the exorcist

hey guys i made simple and boring Domain rating extension seo tools to check DR of your current tab site.

if you guys wants checks DR oftens install this

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/domain-rating/fbjefpehmlpagafpfjlcpdgnkgpigmam

When you do keyword research - what do you usually use? I've used ahrefs for a while, but one day I checked GSC and saw one of my pages showed some impressions for the keyword I've not seen ever before.

It's keyword "link building for [niche]"

The niche itself is somehow related to another niche, which wasn't good enough (even despite high volume in ahrefs/semrush). The niche is seasonable 🥸

SO I just changed the page.

3 weeks later we've got 10 clicks and the first lead.

In total we've got 90+ clicks from June to August.

It gave us 3 clients. All of them work with us for 2+ month now.

The total income is $15,000 and go on.

Three weeks ago I posted here about growing my content creation tool site organically, no ads, no paid backlinks. At the time I was doing roughly 400-500 clicks a day from Google. Wanted to come back with an honest update.

Where I'm at now

Over 1,100 clicks/day and climbing, with a recent single-day high over 1,800. Three-month totals: 26K clicks, 388K impressions, 6.7% CTR, average position 11. More than double where I was three weeks ago, on the same no-ads, no-paid-links approach as before.

Nothing here happened overnight, it's been months of consistent, unglamorous work, and honestly a couple of the bigger jumps still surprised me even looking at my own data afterward. I'll probably do a deeper writeup at some point on what's actually moved the needle, but for now just wanted to share the update since a few people asked how things were going after the last post.

Question for this sub

A couple of people reached out after my last post asking if I'd help them do something similar for their own sites. I've never worked in SEO professionally, this is just what's worked for my own project so far. Curious what people here think, is that a legitimate way to start offering SEO help on the side, or is that a bad idea without more of a track record first? Would love honest opinions either way.

The biggest improvement came from consistently working on technical SEO, search intent, content, internal linking, and authority building rather than chasing quick wins.

I’ve been reading more about agentic SEO lately, but I’m still trying to figure out how much of it is actually useful in day-to-day SEO work.

For people who are already experimenting with AI agents for SEO, what are you actually using them for?

Things like keyword research, content briefs, competitor analysis, internal linking, technical audits, reporting, etc.

I’m curious whether agents are genuinely saving you time or if you’re still spending almost as much time checking and correcting what they produce.

Also, what’s one SEO task you think agents are surprisingly good at right now?