Overview

This page lists only tactics where Google or Bing has published a statement that contradicts or prohibits them. Each entry gives the claim as it circulates, the official position with a link, and a safer way to get the same result. A practitioner tactic missing from this list is not ruled out: plenty of unofficial heuristics work and simply have no official confirmation. Use this page as a risk check before shipping a tactic, and see generative-engine-optimization for what to do instead.

Most of the Google entries trace to the “Mythbusting generative AI search” section of Google’s AI optimization guide (May 2026), which says plainly that some things “you can ignore for Google Search”.

Skip FAQPage markup as an AI-citation lever

  • Claim: add FAQPage schema and AI Overviews will quote your answers.
  • Official: Google’s guide says structured data is not required for generative AI search and “there’s no special schema.org markup you need to add”; it also lists overfocusing on structured data as something to ignore. FAQ rich results stopped showing for all sites on May 7, 2026 (structured-data), and markup the visible page does not back violates Google’s structured data guidelines.
  • Instead: keep accurate FAQPage only on genuine Q&A pages, and write visible question headings with one-sentence answers (answer-first-content).

Skip llms.txt, chunking, and AI-only rewrites as Google levers

  • Claim: an llms.txt file, or splitting pages into small chunks, lifts visibility in AI Overviews and AI Mode.
  • Official: the same guide says you do not need machine-readable files, AI text files, markup, or Markdown to appear in Google Search, and Google Search does not use them. It says there is no requirement to break content into tiny pieces, that there is no ideal page length, and that rewriting content just for AI systems is unnecessary.
  • Instead: keep llms.txt for coding agents and other tools (llms-txt), and size pages for the reader.

Do not manufacture engagement signals

  • Claim: dwell time and pogo-sticking are ranking signals, so inflate time on page or buy clicks.
  • Official: Google’s ranking overview says it uses “aggregated and anonymized interaction data” to assess relevance and names no dwell-time metric or threshold. Google’s spam policies prohibit machine-generated traffic, meaning automated queries sent to Google, which covers click bots.
  • Instead: make the first screen answer the query so real visitors have no reason to bounce back.
  • Claim: A links to B, B links to C, C links to A, so no reciprocal pattern shows.
  • Official: Google’s link spam policy lists “excessive link exchanges” and partner pages built only for cross-linking. Routing the exchange through a third site does not change its purpose.
  • Instead: earn links with citable assets (backlinks).

Disclose paid placements and skip citation-bait language

  • Claim: pay influencers to repeat a scripted brand description, or run brand-keyword campaigns, so AI answers echo the wording.
  • Official: Bing’s Webmaster Guidelines say content should be created for users, not to manipulate rankings or trigger citations or AI responses, and list prompt injection and AI manipulation as abuse that can cost grounding eligibility. Paid links must carry rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow" under Google’s link spam policy (html-links-rel). In the US, the FTC’s Endorsement Guides require disclosing material connections in paid endorsements.
  • Instead: sponsor openly, disclose every paid mention, and let creators describe the product in their own words.

Do not seed citations with misleading pages

  • Claim: publish “best X” press releases naming yourself, or put “reddit” in a slug, so AI engines treat the page as an independent recommendation.
  • Official: Google’s link spam policy names optimized anchor text in press releases distributed on other sites. Google’s AI guide says seeking inauthentic mentions “isn’t as helpful as it might seem”. Bing treats language engineered to trigger AI citations as abuse. A slug that implies a forum thread the page is not misrepresents its source.
  • Instead: publish comparison pages under your own name with disclosed bias, and earn real community mentions by answering questions where readers ask them.