Blog
Websites with greater movement in organic search are mentioned more in searching AI
Jun
I don’t think this result is for every surprise. Websites that have more traffic in established organic search are also mentioned in AI searching. Popular pages are popular, even if the search system changes.
I looked at the 50 best sites listed at the Brand Ahrefs radar for Google AI, Chatgpt and embarrassment reviews. This is an AI ~ 76.7 m review, horses of ChatgPT by 957 thousand. And 953.5k hints of embarrassment for the month of 2025.
I compared the site, he mentions their global ecological search movement in Ahrefs.
Sidenote.
The brand’s radar is not only another monitor of artificial intelligence visibility, we follow a enormous number of queries in all these systems and you can ask for every product, service or brand and compare with competitors. It’s more like a site explorer than to track ranks. In addition, we have the visibility of the network so that you can see how you talk about the Internet and search for the demand to show your popularity.
Here’s what the brand’s radar looks like.
Let’s start.
It seems that all 3 systems more often recall human trade sites, but the strength of this relationship is slightly different.
Memories of embarrassment are the most consistent with the organic search of website search, and chatgpt is the least even, but if Wikipedia was not so huge, it would be much more even.
I will give a normal correlation not equal to the waiver of causal fitness, but this correlation makes full meaning.
Here Spearman rank correlations Memory Share vs. Search for traffic in the 50 best domains in each system:
| You have an assistant | Spearman RHO | Value P | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google AI review | 0.47 | 0.0006 | Moderate |
| Chatgpt | 0.33 | 0.0515 | Frail |
| Embarrassment | 0.66 | 0.0000 | Powerful |
The search is what Google does. Sites that do well and have more traffic in Google search engine, also seem to be mentioned more in AI reviews.
AI reviews are excessively indexed on websites generated by users (UGCs), such as YouTube, Reddit and Quora, as well as Wikipedia. They are insufficiently indexed on social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok.
In the previous study we saw the AI review favored UGC sites such as YouTube, Reddit and Quora potentially more than their popularity of the topic indicated that it should, and we see it again here with the search movement. Google really seems to rely on these systems, potentially more than they should. Or maybe they just have answers and a type of content that people really want.
While Wikipedia ranks well in Google and shows here that it was insufficiently represented when we looked at it in terms of the popularity of the subject. I would say that Wikipedia could actually be insufficiently represented in established network search. However, don’t worry, Google seems to improve with artificial intelligence reviews.
Chatgpt was a wild card here. They don’t have a established search index, so I wasn’t sure what to expect from the results. They still finished a decent correlation with organic search movement.
The previous study showed that Wikipedia and information services, such as Reuters, were insufficiently used compared to the popularity of the topic, but it is improved here. It seems that they could be insufficiently represented in established organic search by Google.
Wikipedia is extremely dominant for the mention of chatgpt. They are mentioned in 16.3% of total queries! Messages are also better represented in this index. In fact, without Wikipedia, the correlation between the mention and the search movement would be much stronger.
Those who do not cope so well are corporate and entertainment sites. They do not gain such high visibility compared to how they occurred in Google.
Despite the lack of established search engine, embarrassment showed the strongest correlation with the organic search movement of each of the respondents. We saw a similar result when we looked at the mention of the popularity of the topic. I wonder if they pulled out this data from somewhere and trained their model to adapt with it.
YouTube and Wikipedia dominate in embarrassment, from 16.1% and 12.5% of total references. Several health pages are also grouped above, such as Healthline and Medlinplus.
Social media sites such as Instagram, entertainment sites such as IMDB and some corporate sites, such as Google and Microsoft, are underestimated.
Final thoughts
This should not be shocked for anyone. Websites with greater movement in organic search are mentioned more in searching AI.
From favored pages I would say that creating movies and activities on forums is a good idea. These systems really want the content generated by users.
I am not sure if writing encyclopedic content would really work unless you are Wikipedia. Looking at our own voice, he gets a bit, but not many visits from AI Search.
