Independent SEO Consultancy
She's in the Attic
She's in the Attic

Archaeology  ×  Literature  ×  Astrology  ×  Science & Art

[ Contact ]
Home× Astrology× The latest acronym
April 2026 Industry Opinion

The latest acronym doesn't mean
sustainable growth or success.

"Heavy words and so lightly thrown." AMP. CWV. E-A-T. AEO. GEO. Every year a new acronym arrives with the confidence of someone who has just invented fire. Most of it passes. Here is why that matters.

I have lost count of the number of times I have either rolled my eyes or had a small amount of sick appear in my mouth. Usually prompted by a LinkedIn post. Occasionally by Search Engine Land. And — back when it was a thing — by an actual human being in an actual room.

The trigger is always the same. Someone has discovered a new acronym and needs you to know about it. It gets thrown around with the confidence of someone who has just invented fire — all urgency and implication, and absolutely nothing in the way of context, implementation cost, or whether it actually applies to your business. Heavy words, so lightly thrown.

I will hold my hands up. I have been guilty of it too. AMP is a good example — I had nine months of painful conversations with a dev team explaining why it mattered, eventually got it implemented, and when it landed the conversion rates went through the roof. Made its money back in dev hours within a couple of months. By any measure a success.

And then the technology faded. Google quietly deprioritised it. The answer turned out to be: just make the website faster overall. Which, to be fair, we also did. Nine months of hard conversations for a technology that lasted three years before becoming irrelevant.

"The acronym is not always wrong. The people shouting about it usually are."

The hall of fame

A partial list, offered without apology:

Responsive Design Not an acronym but the template for all that followed. Mattered enormously. Still does. But at the time it arrived it was presented as a magic fix rather than a fundamental architectural change that would take months and significant dev resource to get right.
AMP Accelerated Mobile Pages. Google's attempt to speed up the mobile web by hosting your content on their servers. Worked. Then faded. The lesson was not AMP — it was that site speed matters. Which we already knew.
E-A-T Expertise, Authority, Trustworthiness. A useful framework from Google's quality rater guidelines that became a consultancy buzzword. Then E-E-A-T arrived because apparently one E was not enough. The underlying principle — build a credible, authoritative site — is as old as SEO itself.
CWV Core Web Vitals. Real signals. Worth caring about. But the number of people presenting lists of improvements without any knowledge of platform constraints, dev cost, or whether there was a faster route to the same outcome was — and remains — extraordinary.
SGE / AIO Search Generative Experience became AI Overviews. The answer served before the click. A real shift — but not the extinction event it was presented as, and not something you optimise for by changing what you were already doing correctly.
AEO / GEO Answer Engine Optimisation. Generative Engine Optimisation. The latest iteration. We need to get on ChatGPT, apparently — as if ChatGPT is a channel you can just turn up on. Old MacDonald had a farm, EEI, EEO.
DA Domain Authority. Not a Google metric. Never was. A Moz invention that got cargo-culted into SEO reporting because clients understood a single number. Optimising for DA is optimising for a third-party approximation of something Google does not even use.

The vanity trap

The AEO and GEO conversation is where this gets most expensive. The pitch goes: you need to optimise for AI citations, for featured snippets, for AI Overviews. Get your content into those boxes. Get cited by ChatGPT.

Here is what that actually means in practice. You spend twelve to fifteen months writing content designed to answer questions so completely that the search engine — or the AI — can extract the answer without the user ever visiting your site. You get the citation. You get the win. You show it to a client or a board. The vanity metric looks great.

The revenue does not move. Because you have swapped a converting visit for a brand mention inside someone else's answer. You have optimised for a butler who tells people things so they do not have to come to you. No traffic. No attribution. No conversion. Just the warm feeling of being cited by a robot.

There is something else worth saying here that rarely gets acknowledged. Chasing featured snippets, AI Overviews and generative citations does not just fail to drive traffic — it can actively reduce it. When you optimise a page to answer a question so completely that Google serves the answer directly in the results, you have succeeded in getting the featured snippet and eliminated any reason for the user to click. Congratulations. You have worked hard to send yourself less traffic than you were getting before.

This is not theoretical. Sites with strong informational content have seen CTR decline steadily as AI Overviews absorb more of the results page. The impressions hold up. The clicks do not. Optimising harder for those positions makes the problem worse, not better. The fish analogy applies again — just because there are no fish in the glass you have taken from the ocean does not mean there are no fish. It means you are measuring the wrong thing.

"No point driving visibility if the visit never happens."

What does not change

The people shouting loudest about the latest acronym share a common characteristic: they have no idea what they do not know. They have not asked what it costs to implement. They have not asked whether the platform can support it. They have not asked what you would be giving up to pursue it, or whether the problem it solves is actually your problem. Empty vessels making noise.

The fundamentals have not changed. Intent. Relevance. Conversion. Trust. A site that is accessible to crawlers, contains content that matches what people are actually searching for, earns authority from sources that matter, and converts the visits it gets — that site was working in 2005, it was working in 2015, and it is working now. The acronyms come and go. The work stays the same.

Critical thinking is the missing ingredient. The ability to look at something and ask: what does this actually mean, who does it apply to, what does it cost to implement, and does it change anything for this business at this moment? Not every acronym is wrong. AMP worked. CWV points at something real. But the question is always whether it is the right priority for you, right now, with the resources you have.

The latest acronym does not mean sustainable growth or success. It never did.