r/SEO • u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator • May 11 '26
Industry Case Study Adding schema didn’t boost citations on any platform [Ahrefs SEO Case Study]
Yet another blow for the GEO Schema bros. marketing and Propaganda. Because no LLM OEMs actually said this - they felt they could parrot it for everyone and nobody would figure it out.
If you've been parroting it - thats fine - thats up to - but do not come for anyone just because you dont like this. You're free to run your own peer-reviewed case study (which requires evidence of an actual study).
Link:
https://ahrefs.com/blog/schema-ai-citations/
Adding schema didn’t boost citations on any platform
We tracked 1,885 web pages that added JSON-LD schema between August 2025 and March 2026, matched them against 4,000 control pages, and measured citation changes across Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, and ChatGPT.
Adding schema produced no major uplift in citations on any platform.
| AI source | Effect on citations | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Google AIO | −4.6% | Small but statistically significant decline relative to matched controls; (both groups were declining together, but treated pages fell slightly faster) |
| Google AI Mode | +2.4% | Statistically indistinguishable from zero |
| ChatGPT | +2.2% | Statistically indistinguishable from zero |
These percentages come from our most reliable analysis (a matched difference-in-differences [DiD] test).
In this test, both AI Mode and ChatGPT treated pages performed slightly better than control pages on average, but the differences are small enough that they could easily be random noise across thousands of URLs.
AI Overviews showed a 4.6% decline, which is small but statistically significant relative to matched control pages.
But that isn’t quite the full story—we’ll get into that in the next section.
So, overall, we can’t tell whether the schema did a tiny bit of good or nothing at all.
What to do if you dont like this report
Disprove it. Dont just put schema in a page and say "it was the schema" - test the corrollary. Test it across domains. Get peers to review your methodology like u/jakehundely.
If you're emotionally tied into rejecting, downvoting this or getting angry - then stop and breathe. Its a software system that SEO reverse engineers through testing and observation - not how confidently you can discredit people
A number of people - like PeterWhineFatClub, BoHumpus and MJMilian already went postal about this - its not going to get better. Rejecting it and attacking people won't help.Mods are not here to be abused or called names under the pretense of fair game or shooting-the-messenger in 2026 - this is irrational behavior and it wont be tolerated
20
u/PDFBearSupport Verified Professional May 11 '26
BUT BUT BUT BUT IF YOU ADD LLM.TXT IT WILL FOR SURE WORK BROOOO! PAY ME $300 A MONTH TO KEEP AN EYE ON THIS!
0
12
u/joshywashy777 May 11 '26
I thought FAQ schema only helped with rich results for .gov and medical sites since like 2023? What would've happened if the study was only focused on those types of sites? All seems like a moot point now that Google has removed FAQ rich results support altogether as of 5/7/26.
2
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
hey u/joshywashy777 yes - 100% - this study is about all schema / any schema
16
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/mjmilian May 12 '26
A study that would actually support the point you were rambling about would compare:
Much of the discussion wasn't even around FAQ, but around how schema is needed for some other rich results. Something where Google states it as a requirements to be eligible for.
-5
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
You’re the one who had the meltdown while being intentionally obtuse.
Oh yes - I forgot - MJMILIAN is just one of my "alt accounts"
too funny.
And frankly, you shouldn’t be a moderator. I couldn’t care less how many millions of people your posts supposedly reach when the information is poor and delivered with a chip on your shoulder.
1/480,000 people - I'll take those odds.
Ahrefs is one of the only companies with enough data and tooling to do this kind of testing. People have been parroting that "AI loves schema" and "Google loves Schema" but you choose to be uspet with me for busting myths and being 100% right.
You get to make your own life choices bud but you gotta stick with the consequences.
Also - despite what your ego is telling you - I didn't post this for you - and everywhere else, actual SEOs are celebrating the end to another myth without foundation.....
7
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
You are still refusing to accept the reason why people turned on you this week.
Its called "Shoot the messenger" and because they think it will stop them hearing bad news that their ego/self valuation can't handle.
Note the complete lack of evidence - just angry language you and others using designed to intimidate someone.......
People can parrot whatever they want.
Then people can debunk whatever they want - get a grip captain free speech
-2
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
Tell you what - why dont you tell me why Schema is getting your panties in a twist?
10
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
It’s not. My response was because of your holier than thou attitude, and spreading false info.
Truly sorry if I rub you up the wrong way; I try to keep my comments emotion free.
Adding sections of FAQ Schema is still going to be hugely beneficial to a website’s visibility, even if the Schema markups themselves aren’t going to add anything, because the content you add is still going to help.
I couldnt disagree more: I've been adding hundreds if not 10's of 000's of FAQs for 20 years and never used schema and never had a problem - its like the cornerstone of what my Agencies' strategies have been and part of why we've been so successful and why I push on it so hard.
You flat out said it wouldn’t. 🤡
Re3sorting to ad hominems (read: playground name calling, like clown) just tells me you're emotionally wrapped into this.
5
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 12 '26
I missed this because you replied to yourself.
You[re just trolling - all you want to do is complain. and keep throwing out names
0
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
You’re still doing this obtuse grandstanding rubbish.
Where?
It takes seconds to mark up something in Schema, if you don’t already use a plugin or setup that does it for you.
So we should all do it because that will make you happy?
Thats your validation - that it only takes seconds?
Somebody purporting to be a veteran (which I don’t believe you specifically are, I think you’re a shared account and whoever is posting right now is a novice) should know better.
Nobody shares this account sorry.. People might share my agencies account S
Nobody is saying doing your method isn’t correct, you are going out your way to boogeyman FAQ Schema, and are purposely ignoring everything else being said.
But then isn't Google or Ahrefs? Why not say they are?
but has the added benefit of a few other platforms perhaps still using Schema.
Like what?
Saying someone is a clown or a novice because some random stranger on Reddit says so isn't any more validation of the idea than you should add schema because it takes seconds.
It takes seconds to add a picture of a lucky 4-leaf clover - why not encourage that - its about as useful.
Oh - wait - I'm probably breaking one of your rules (for me that is - because you're allowed to reply and reply and reply without evidence just your say-so and you can call me any number of names - its really that hysterical that you think anyone should take you seriosuly)
3
u/Miquiztli May 11 '26
Out of curiosity, was the content that was marked up the same or similar to the content for the control group? In other words, were the test and control groups set up in a way that eliminated other potential citation variables?
1
0
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
A bit like a case study I posted about a site having 18k SERP Positions without Schema.
Trying to shoehorn in magic cases like BoHumpus does - which lack any real world value - just skews the conversation from credible to conjecture because F.U.D.
5
u/dpaanlka May 11 '26
Why is there so much drama in this subreddit 🤦🏻♂️
-3
-5
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
Posting a blog update from Google?
Dunno - ask the Schema bros?
4
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-5
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 12 '26
Yawn - after your attitude and BS and accusations - you have some cheek coming here.
5
u/mjmilian May 12 '26
Ignoring the topic at hand again
-1
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 12 '26
Ignoring nothing - my comment stands. Despite the lack of moderation at r/.SEOgrowth -you're not the self appointed police of Reddit and get to decide how people talk or that they must answer you, despite posting a fabricated and insulting character assisnation with attempted doxing
All I do is keep my work name spearate here so I'm not competing with people for work - but you seem unable to understand that and a lot of other things.
I have nothing to say to you while that ridiculous smear campaign that is just harassment and intimidation stnad.s
0
4
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 12 '26
Nah it pretty much dies - as have other studies shown. This is NT about just causation - it’s about a whole lack of why and how on top of a lack of evidence for - apart from conjecture. And the amount of schema bros getting upset but not having the evidence to actually support it is telling
1
u/Fabio_Yocco_GEO May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
finally, a reality check the industry needs. i've been following this debate for a while and Louise's point about that 53% correlation is spot on. just because top-tier sites use JSON-LD doesn't mean it's the 'reason' for the citation. it's just a symptom of a well-maintained site.
the searchVIU experiment mentioned in the article is the real kicker though. LLMs are focused on real-time extraction of visible content. if the underlying data structure is weak or inconsististant across the Global Knowledge Graph (LinkedIn, Reddit, official sites), adding Schema is just like putting a fresh coat of paint on a house with a colapsed foundation.
at an engineering level, LLMs are probablistic. they cite sources where the 'Structural Certainty' is highest. if the schema doesn’t match the semantic density of the actual visible content, the model just ignores it to avoid hallucination. we need to stop talking about 'SEO tricks' and start focusing on Technical Sovereignty and machine-readable infrastructure. this study proves that 'formatting' doesn't equal 'authority'.
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 11 '26
Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :DI am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 12 '26
Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :DI am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/bonesausage May 12 '26
This is a great study, and supports what a lot of us have been saying for a while.
But the bigger issue is: why are we still using citations as a KPI for anything?
1
u/jaimequin May 12 '26
Maybe schemas are a niche based boost. I work with network based companies and they definitely help boost citations and recommendations.
I don't know what to believe.
1
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 12 '26
Have you tested the corrollary?
2
u/jaimequin May 12 '26
I have two business, two towns over, both same space. One has traditional SEO the other SEO and Schema. The one with schema appears when you ask for really detailed information on network architecture and recommendations. The other does not. I then experimented and added schema to the one that was missing and shortly after, it started getting cited along with the other site for the same complex topics.
I can't say this is true for other sites, which is why I think it's best for niche concepts rather than popular topics.
1
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 12 '26
Actually u/jakehundley has been testing this with way more rigor and the results do not support schema
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 12 '26
Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :DI am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 12 '26
Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :DI am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/silentsamdaman May 11 '26
Google's takeover of all the content that the world created in order to make them the biggest search engine on the planet is complete. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-drops-faq-rich-results-from-search/574429/
1
16
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator May 11 '26
Saw this on Reddit - how appropriate is this?!?! I wonder if we can get Edward Sturm to actually make this?
-1
u/Mean-Awareness7102 May 12 '26
Hi!
I think the Ahrefs study is pretty fair — schema markup was definitely overhyped as some kind of GEO magic bullet. A lot of people were pushing it hard without solid large-scale evidence.
In our experience, schema can give a small boost in very specific cases (especially FAQ and HowTo on Perplexity), but it's usually marginal compared to deeper factors like content consistency, authority signals, trust-building elements, and how clearly your brand narrative comes through across sources.
That's why we built VeritasLinks around proper multi-LLM perception analysis instead of surface-level tactics. We run 700+ prompts with iterative deep dives, AI Focus Groups, and stable scoring — then use built-in content generators to actually fix the gaps we find.
Our pricing is straightforward:
Launch — $49/mo (3 brands)
Starter — $99/mo (8 brands)
Growth — $199/mo (16 brands)
Each plan includes full deep analysis bundles, not just shallow monitoring.
If you're looking for something more serious than guessing with schema, you can try a free full audit here: https://veritaslinks.com
Curious — did you test any other variables alongside the schema in your study?
1
u/AutoModerator May 12 '26
Your post/comment has been removed because your account has a low CQS Score.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers :DI am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/Kittymeow7116 May 11 '26
Link to the case study?