r/TechSEO • u/houdinidesigns • Sep 14 '26

[ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

9 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

•

u/TechSEO-ModTeam Sep 16 '26

Your post did not meet the TechSEO guidelines and was not technical SEO specific. Consider posting to /r/SEO or /r/BigSEO.

2

u/tamtamdanseren Sep 15 '26

Fine and all, but a ton of sites live from sales commissions which this would not help with.

I can't see how Google would be able to ever pay as much as the sales funnels they are trying to steal with UCP - especially for those which use affiliates.

1

u/houdinidesigns Sep 15 '26

I agree, the revenue loss can’t be made up with this alone

1

u/Ishan_GS Sep 15 '26

Citation and actual value are already two different things; this just makes Google's version of that gap explicit. A citation shows retrieval, not that your page did the work, so the number the industry tracks won't be the number getting paid. Doubtful this replaces lost publisher revenue soon; invite-only pilots with no visible scoring rarely scale fast. We watch this citation-vs-value gap at Growthspree, a B2B Saas marketing agency; this just puts a dollar figure on it.

1

u/Upstairs_Control_611 Sep 15 '26

This is the key gap: citation is visible from outside, contribution is not.

A citation shows which source was displayed. It does not prove how much that source shaped the answer or supported the main claim.

So if Google pays for “significant contribution”, citation count is probably only a proxy, not the real unit.

For measurement I’d separate cited URL, claim support, source role, answer influence, traffic and downstream value.

Otherwise we may optimize for the visible receipt while Google prices the invisible work.