{"id":2897,"date":"2026-02-05T23:43:36","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T15:43:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/?p=2897"},"modified":"2026-02-05T23:43:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T15:43:36","slug":"is-google-finally-cracking-down-on-self-promotional-listicles-via-sejournal-lilyraynyc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/?p=2897","title":{"rendered":"Is Google Finally Cracking Down On Self-Promotional Listicles? via @sejournal, @lilyraynyc"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>

Jump straight to examples of affected websites.<\/p>

Over the past year, one of the most common tactics for gaining visibility in AI search has been for companies to publish \u201clisticle\u201d content on their own blogs \u2013 ranking the best companies or products in their niche and placing themselves in the No. 1 spot.<\/p>

There are variations of this approach \u2013 the listicle might contain a list of the best companies, or it could also list the best products in a specific industry. The common thread is that the company publishing the blog post ranks itself, and\/or its own products, in the top position.<\/p>

It has also become increasingly common for companies using this tactic to collaborate with others in the same industry, mutually promoting one another in their respective listicles \u2013 a modern twist on reciprocal linking:\u00a0you mention me, and I\u2019ll mention you.<\/em><\/p>

Over the past year or two, these self-serving listicles have proven to be effective at influencing traditional search rankings \u2013 and, by extension, visibility within LLMs that rely on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) \u2013 when users search for the top companies, products, or services in a given niche.<\/p>

For example, if you type \u201cbest content marketing agencies\u201d into Google\u2019s AI Overviews, you might see a result like this:<\/p>

\"Is
Image Credit: Lily Ray<\/figcaption><\/figure>

When you dig into the listed sources, you\u2019ll notice that the recommended companies are using listicle-style blogs to rank themselves as the No. 1 top content marketing agency (example articles from Omniscient,\u00a0Ten Speed, and\u00a0Optimist\u00a0are shown as sources above).<\/p>

Search queries containing \u201cbest\u201d tend to return recent results both in the search results and within LLM responses. For example, when a user is looking for the \u201cbest accounting software for small business,\u201d Google often prominently ranks articles that were published or updated within the last year, and ChatGPT also generates fan-out queries containing \u201c2026\u201d to ensure the user\u2019s query pulls up recent information:<\/p>

\"Is
Image Credit: Lily Ray<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Therefore, part of this approach is to ensure that the article is either recently published, and\/or recently updated with the current year in the title, to benefit from the search results and LLMs prioritizing recent results for these queries.<\/p>

The Gray Area Of SEO<\/h2>

I consider this tactic to fall into the \u201cgray area\u201d of SEO. SEO strategies are often labeled as \u201cwhite hat\u201d or \u201cblack hat\u201d\u2014shorthand for approaches that either comply with search engine policies or clearly violate them and are treated as spam. Some tactics, however, sit in between: they aren\u2019t illegal or overtly malicious, and not necessarily unethical, but they can be misleading to users. In many cases, they are implemented primarily for SEO benefit rather than to deliver a genuinely valuable or authentic user experience.<\/p>

The concept of the \u201cgray area\u201d is one that SEO expert Glenn Gabe\u00a0frequently references in his analysis of Google updates. His definition closely aligns with mine: a space where sites may not be explicitly violating Google\u2019s policies, but still lack strong quality signals or rely on risky tactics \u2013 leaving them especially vulnerable to volatility as Google\u2019s core systems evolve.<\/p>

When evaluating where a given tactic might land, I often refer to\u00a0Google\u2019s recommendations\u00a0about avoiding creating content that is written primarily for search engines, not humans. With this approach, a few of Google\u2019s questions come into play:<\/p>

  • Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis?<\/strong><\/li> <\/ul>

    Although these pages often claim extensive research, that credibility is undermined by consistently ranking their own company first and by the implausibility that they have truly hired and evaluated the other competitors they rank in the listicle. Google has\u00a0long recommended that review content contains real evidence\u00a0of having tested the reviewed products or services. These pages almost always lack this evidence.<\/p>

    • Does the title avoid exaggerating or being misleading?<\/strong><\/li> <\/ul>

      Using \u201cbest\u201d in the title implies an objective, independent evaluation. When a company ranks itself No. 1 without clear disclosure or transparent methodology, that framing can be misleading \u2013 even if the claims aren\u2019t technically false.<\/p>

      • Does the content present information in a way that makes you want to trust it?<\/strong><\/li> <\/ul>

        Articles that rank the publisher\u2019s own company as the best company introduce an inherent bias that undermines trust. Without third-party validation, reviewer credentials, or evidence of independent, objective testing, the information lacks the signals users (and Google) expect from credible reviews.<\/p>

        For these reasons, I haven\u2019t been recommending these types of listicles as a sustainable strategy for building long-term visibility in organic search or AI-generated answers. They rarely provide an honest or authentic user experience, and tactics that sit in the gray area of Google\u2019s content and spam policies have a long track record of eventually creating problems for site owners over time.<\/p>

        It Works, Until It Doesn\u2019t<\/h2>

        The challenge with SEO tactics that fall into the gray area is that\u00a0they can definitely drive strong results<\/strong> \u2013 at least for a while. Furthermore, with the rise of AI search, we\u2019re seeing that LLMs like ChatGPT are certainly susceptible to spammy tactics and currently lack Google\u2019s level of sophistication in detecting and countering manipulative SEO approaches.<\/p>

        That said, there\u2019s a familiar line anyone who\u2019s followed my work has heard me say on repeat: It works, until it doesn\u2019t.<\/em><\/p>

        When a tactic proves effective at driving SEO visibility and becomes widely adopted, Google (and other search engines) almost always develop ways to detect and suppress it. This pattern is what I call \u201cthe cycle of SEO\u201d \u2013 a concept I explored in depth during my 2025 BrightonSEO keynote, shown below:<\/p>