At the end of last year, I was invited to an interview for the position of Senior SEO Manager at a company developing a new SEO tool that combines content with AI. It sounded quite interesting, especially since it was well within my professional interests. For obvious reasons, I won’t mention the name of the company, that’s not the point here.
The interview process itself was pretty standard. A few calls, typical questions about experience, strategic approach, toolstack. Nothing that surprised me after more than a decade in the industry.
The real story starts at a later stage, when I was given a task: a full technical and general analysis of that tool’s website.
I did it the way I always do SEO audits – thoroughly.
The Red Flag I Couldn’t Ignore
Technically speaking, the website looked the way it did. Here and there, something needed to be fixed or optimized. Nothing dramatic.
But when I mapped and analyzed the entire content structure, one clear, repeating pattern emerged.
The company was publishing almost exclusively two types of content:
- Articles praising their own tool as a breakthrough in SEO
- “Best of” roundups where – surprise, surprise – they always ranked themselves #1
It’s kind of like you’re awarding yourself a medal for first place in a race the other competitors didn’t even know about.
Don’t compare apples to oranges
The next issue was who they were comparing themselves to. Not just direct competitors in the same niche. Not just tools whose use partially overlapped with their own. But tools from completely different categories and completely different fields of activity, including Canva.
You see the absurdity? It’s a bit like writing that Mike Tyson is a better boxer compared to Ray Charles. Technically maybe true. Practically, completely pointless, because the two never stepped into the same ring and never would.
Comparisons make sense when you’re in the same weight class. When you’re competing for the same user, solving the same problem, positioned in the same market category. Otherwise it’s not digital marketing, it’s self-congratulation dressed up as analysis.
What Google Did in March and April 2026
In March 2026, Google rolled out a Core Update and a Spam Update almost simultaneously. The effects were significant.
According to Sistrix data analyzed by Aleyda Solis, 79.5% of top-3 URLs shifted positions, noticeably higher than the 66.8% movement recorded after the December 2025 update. In the top 10, 90.7% of pages moved. Stability? Just 20.5% of top-3 URLs held their exact positions.
Who lost? Aggregators, comparison sites, intermediaries. Who won? Official institutional sources, primary brand destinations, pages with original data and clear specialization.
And then came one more signal, this time directly from Google.
In a comment provided to The Verge, Google spokesperson Jennifer Kutz said: the company is aware of low-quality listicle content and is actively working to combat that kind of abuse.
Pages created specifically to place a website’s own products or services in the top spot of competitor roundups are considered a form of manipulation. Sites that do this may be hit by Google’s spam algorithms.
Three patterns Google hit hardest:
- Vendor ranking themselves #1: “Best CRM Tools for 2026” published by a CRM company that places itself at the top of the list.
- Year-swap freshness – a 2023 article where only the year in the title and a few metadata fields was updated to “2026.” No new data, no revised analysis, no substantive changes. Just a number swap.
- Reciprocal listicle networks: companies in the same space mutually featuring each other in their respective “top X” roundups. A modern version of reciprocal link building, just dressed up as content.
These weren’t random penalties. They were deliberate reassessments of pages whose primary purpose was manipulation, not information.
Why This Surprised No One Who’s Been Watching Google
Google does this systematically. Panda hit thin content. Penguin hit manipulative links. Helpful Content wiped out AI-spam farms. Now it’s the listicles’ turn.
The pattern is always the same: a tactic works, the industry exploits it at scale, Google penalizes it and raises the bar.
Self-serving listicles worked, because the “best of” format is easy for AI to parse, “best X” queries are common, and articles can be produced quickly in large volumes. The window has closed.
What the data shows is winning right now:
- Original data – your company published numbers nobody else has
- Direct topical ownership – you’re the source, not an aggregator
- Transparent methodology – readers can see how you evaluated, not just who you picked
- Real experience – screenshots, specific use cases, actual results
One more piece of context worth keeping in mind in 2026: 88% of URLs cited by ChatGPT come directly from Google search results. Losing Google rankings now means a double hit, you lose organic traffic and you disappear from AI answers at the same time.
Stop Giving Yourself Awards
Back to the company from the interview. I don’t know whether the March update hit them. I haven’t checked and I’m not going to. As we say in Poland: “Not my circus, not my monkeys”.
But looking at what my report described, and what Google has now confirmed publicly, the pattern is identical.
A content strategy built on self-serving listicles, comparisons with tools outside your category, and self-promotion as a substitute for genuine expertise is not an SEO strategy. It’s a short-term tactic that looks good in a quarterly report and ends badly every time a major update rolls through.
I told you so…
I’m not saying this as someone who enjoys an “I told you so.” I’m saying it as someone who’s obsessed with what actually works, and what works long-term.
If your site is currently living off listicles where you rank yourself first, open your Google Search Console. There’s a good chance the answer is already waiting for you there.
I didn’t get the job
No hard feelings. Every company has the right to hire someone who’ll tell them what they want to hear. But what I’ve been saying for years now has some very tangible confirmation.
Questions about your SEO audit or content strategy? Get in touch.
About the Author
I’m Peter Sawicki, a Destination SEO Strategist helping tourism brands and DMOs grow their online presence through SEO, technical audits, and creative digital strategies. Over the years I’ve worked across multiple countries and markets, which gives me a global perspective on every project I take on. When I’m not optimizing websites, you’ll most likely find me underwater. Scuba diving is where my two biggest passions meet.
