r/AISearchAnalytics

Statistics is a funny thing. When something grows from 0 clicks to 3 clicks, it makes it a 300% growth rate, to be sure. :)

AI traffic is 0.3% of all traffic for websites, on average, after three years of sending traffic, but we are still excited about reporting that :)

To be sure, traffic is not going to be a major AI visibility metric for a foreseeable future, since AI Answers are not designed for clicking. But it is nice that it grew to 0.3%

https://preview.redd.it/tdniyle68gah1.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f1048cdf7a9dd75b41bdc0dd8a3b74299386c5c

Source: Seranking

Wix just came up with its State of Websites report with one of those takeaways.

I genuinely like Wix and what they are doing for SEO (as far as education goes), but these correlation studies are a bit insane at this point.

I have the same theory here as to "Pages with schema are cited more" studies. There's another one for same as well:

Sites with structured data markup that passes Google’s rich-results inspection earn 2x more revenue and get 9x more traffic than sites without.

Look...

Businesses that use LLMs / Schema are more likely to have better SEO strategies overall, because they obviously care. That's it.

There's no direct impact here.

I analyzed hypothetical sports prompts across Google Gemini 2.5 and 3.5 Flash to measure betting site citations. I was initially surprised to see a large amount of betting sites suggested by 2.5, but ended up finding something else completely :)

- Gemini 3.5 Flash was more willing to answer hypothetical sports questions: 49/50 vs. 28/50 (2.5 Flash).

- Gemini 3.5 Flash cited slightly more URLs on average - 8.1 vs. 7.7 at 2.5 Flash (not statistically significant).

- 82% of cited URLs are not mentioned in Google's SERP Top 15 (organic). This is consistent between both 2.5 and 3.5 models. And 55-62% (depending on model) don't even share a domain with any URLs ranking in the Top 15.

- Only 38% of domains cited by Gemini 2.5 Flash were present in Gemini 3.5 answers. This is a massive shift from one model to another.

- Wikipedia and YouTube are the most stable citation sources (appearing in 14 and 7 prompts respectively). The 3.5 model is citing both sources considerably more often than 2.5.

- Gemini 2.5 is surprisingly leaning towards betting sites (14% of answers). This changed with 3.5 - only 6% of citations, more or less corresponding with organic (7%).

- In 2.5, betting clustered by sport. Football tournament queries were ~70% betting citations, rugby ~80%. The model reached for odds specifically where outright markets exist.

- More specifically - 2.5's refusals tracked betting markets. It declined most future tournaments (Champions League, La Liga, NBA, F1 titles) but answered the ones with live outright markets - and answered those with betting sites.

- I ran the test against ESPN (homepage URL) - it was ranked consistently in Google's Organic Top 15 for many queries. ESPN appeared in 0 citations by both 2.5 and 3.5 Flash Gemini models.

The biggest insight in my opinion is the model variance. The difference between Gemini 2.5 and 3.5 is dramatic, while the overlap with Organic SERP remains consistently low.

GEO requires not only a platform-specific, but also a model-specific. I think it is wise to re-monitor the visibility across key prompt clusters as soon as a new model is being released.