Patrick Stox
AMA 問答

I've had a lot of conversations with consultants and agency folks recently where it seems like everyone selling SEO is struggling, and everyone selling GEO/AEO is able to charge more and easily sell. It's shiny object syndrome right now where people are chasing the new thing, afraid they will be left behind. It's probably a good idea to make that pivot if you're feeling the pinch, but I said last year that I suspected in 2-3 years people would finally realize it's all still search, it just changed and fragmented a bit.

我最近和很多顧問、代理商聊過，感覺賣 SEO 的人都很辛苦，賣 GEO/AEO 的人卻能收更高的價錢，也很好成交。現在是「閃亮新玩意症候群」，大家都在追新東西，怕被拋下。如果你正感到壓力，轉過去大概是個好主意；但我去年就說過，我猜 2 到 3 年後大家終究會發現這一切仍然是搜尋，只是有點變化、也更分散了。

People will always search, or have their agents search. It's not like there is just one option for things. I think we'll probably see a huge growth overall in demand as companies realize they can do more than ever.

人們永遠會搜尋，或是讓他們的 agent 去搜尋。事情從來不只有一種選項。我想整體需求大概會大幅成長，因為企業會發現自己能做的事比以往更多。

Strategy, getting attention, marketing, being genuine, making connections and building relationships. A lot of the work will be automated. High touch kind of things and relationships, probably not so much.

策略、爭取關注、行銷、保持真誠、建立人脈與關係。很多工作會被自動化；需要高度互動的事和人際關係，大概就不太會。

We are all kind of cooked. This was actually the topic of my BrightonSEO presentation recently, Technical SEO is Dead*. There is an asterisk! https://speakerdeck.com/patrickstox/patrick-stox-technical-seo-is-dead-bseo . We do have a bit of runway still.

我們某種程度上都「完了」。這其實就是我最近在 BrightonSEO 演講的主題，〈Technical SEO is Dead*〉。注意，有個星號！https://speakerdeck.com/patrickstox/patrick-stox-technical-seo-is-dead-bseo 。我們還有一小段緩衝期。

A lot of technical SEOs I know are creative, solve hard problems, think in systems, and are curious. They're the early adopters for AI. They're the ones with skills that transition very well into this new era.

我認識的許多技術 SEO 都很有創意、會解決難題、用系統思考，而且充滿好奇心。他們是 AI 的早期採用者，也是技能最容易轉移到這個新時代的人。

I'd say make yourself useful. Help others transition. Build things. Scale things. Make yourself invaluable and that will give you the best shot at longevity.

我會說：讓自己有用、幫助別人轉型、動手做東西、把事情規模化，讓自己不可或缺，這樣你最有機會走得長久。

Biggest mistake: thinking I was smarter than everyone else because I had a lot of success early on and I didn't get involved with the industry or networking. I went to some events and just thought people were doing so many basic things, and that was such a poor attitude. I was young and I was the dumb one.

最大的錯誤：我早期有一些成功，就以為自己比所有人都聰明，因此沒有參與業界、也沒有經營人脈。我去過一些活動，只覺得大家在做的都是很基本的事，那是非常糟糕的態度。我當時年輕，笨的人是我。

The best decision I ever made was to get involved in the industry and start helping people.

我做過最好的決定，是投入這個產業、開始幫助別人。

Local events led to writing, writing to speaking and jobs. I've tried to give back and help others get started and more visibility over the years as well. It's been amazing watching some of the folks grow. Now out on my own, the response from people helping me has been incredible and I'm very grateful for the network and goodwill that I built.

參加本地活動帶來寫作，寫作帶來演講和工作。這些年我也努力回饋，幫助別人起步、獲得更多曝光，看著其中一些人成長真的很棒。現在我自己出來做，大家給我的幫助和回應令人難以置信，我非常感謝自己累積下來的人脈與善意。

It's not just the network aspects, writing and speaking helped me learn more about different topics and be able to communicate things in a way that is easier for people to understand. That is invaluable.

不只是人脈而已，寫作和演講也讓我學到更多不同主題，並學會用更容易理解的方式把事情講清楚。這一點非常寶貴。

Snarky answer: not fill out time sheets. For real though, that's a butt in the seat anyone can do it role if that's the case.

挖苦的回答：不要填工時表。不過說真的，如果是那樣，那只是個「人坐在位子上誰都能做」的角色。

Someone advanced may solve the same issue someone else spent weeks on in a matter of minutes because they've seen the issue many times before and knew exactly where to look to troubleshoot and how to fix it.

比較資深的人，可能幾分鐘就解決別人花了好幾週的問題，因為他們看過這個問題很多次，知道該往哪裡查、怎麼修。

Just being able to troubleshoot faster or weigh things like what is important vs not. I.e. your 3 hours updating meta tags should maybe be running tests at scale on them or updating like 10% of those that you did based on value / opportunity. Modeling, forecasting, building tools to scale and measure things. It all depends on your role really.

就是更快排除問題，或是權衡什麼重要、什麼不重要。例如，你花 3 小時更新 meta tag，也許應該改成大規模測試它們，或只依價值與機會更新其中約 10%。還有建模、預測、做工具來規模化與衡量。真的要看你的角色。

Automation, scale, weighing business impact of things so you're not wasting time. Doing dog and pony shows to show the great work you and your team and those you're working with are doing so that you get more funding / buy-in.

自動化、規模化、權衡事情對業務的影響，才不會浪費時間。還要「做簡報秀」，讓大家看到你和團隊、合作對象做得多好，這樣才能爭取到更多經費與認同。

Could be the panelists haven't done many live panels. Sometimes panelists prefer pre-arranged questions. It's always more fun when it's on the fly.

可能是這些與談人沒怎麼參加過現場座談。有時與談人比較喜歡事先安排好的問題。臨場發揮永遠比較好玩。

I feel like I could throw up 20 answers to that on the spot. Top answer would be to actually look at the response in an AI search and chunk and measure each site against that to see where you might lacking for each point.

我覺得這個問題我可以當場丟出 20 個答案。首要的答案是：真的去看 AI 搜尋的回答，把它切成 chunk，再逐一拿每個網站去對照，看你在每個重點上哪裡不足。

Thanks for stopping in and for the compliment.

謝謝你來，也謝謝你的稱讚。

AEO is just SEOs cousin. It does basically the same things, just a little differently.

AEO 只是 SEO 的表親。它做的事基本相同，只是方式略有不同。

For instance, there should be more focus on particular passages. We kind of did this for SEO for things like featured snippets, but now the answer can come from different parts of the page for different queries, so you really have to hone in on what a good answer is. Say the same things (consensus) + add value and back that up with evidence / credibility so you are adding to the corpus of knowledge.

例如，要更重視特定段落。我們以前為了精選摘要（featured snippet）也做過類似的事，但現在答案可能針對不同查詢，取自頁面的不同位置，所以你得更精準掌握什麼才是好答案。說出和大家一致的內容（共識），再加上價值，並以證據與可信度支撐，這樣你才是在為知識庫增加新東西。

There's still offpage, but it's less about links and more about consensus, influencing the narrative.

站外仍然重要，但重點較少放在連結，更多是共識，以及影響敘事。

Throw in model knowledge, brand, etc and now you really just need to be a better company, product, or service to get a leg up. SEOs probably should have been helping with this kind of stuff, and were to some degree, but now it's more involved in the business and different departments.

再加上模型知識、品牌等因素，你現在真正需要的，就是成為更好的公司、產品或服務，才能取得優勢。SEO 以前或許就該協助這類事情，也確實做過一部分，但現在它更深入業務與各個部門。

We'll still have links and mentions. Probably accuracy rate for AI responses. Then measure what's in the response vs on the pages for perhaps some type of consensus score.

仍然會有連結與提及。可能還會有 AI 回答的準確率。然後比較回答內容與頁面內容，也許可以算出某種「共識分數」。

Lol, can I say llms.txt still? I'm just glad the vary header is getting some traction for this, because then we can have everything on one URL again.

哈，我還能說 llms.txt 嗎？我很高興 vary header 在這件事上開始受到關注，因為這樣我們又可以讓所有內容共用同一個 URL 了。

Schema is also overblown imo. It would be used when building a knowledge graph, but none of the systems have that I'm aware of. It's also used to help promote sites in certain features, which are still early in these systems. But the misconception that it helps for rankings, I just don't think so, not yet.

依我看，schema 也被過度誇大了。建立知識圖譜時會用到它，但就我所知，這些系統都還沒有那樣的東西。它也被用來幫助網站在某些功能中獲得曝光，但這些功能在這些系統裡仍處於早期。至於「它有助於排名」的誤解，我就是不這麼認為，至少現在還不是。

Chunks are heavily misunderstood in that we think of a chunk as one thing, but really it could be a few sentences from different parts of a page.

大家對 chunk 誤解很深，以為一個 chunk 就是單一的一塊，但實際上它可能是頁面不同位置的幾個句子。

Publishing pages for every query fan-out has been something I'm seeing promoted. I mean these could be parts of another page, skipped, etc. This just looks spammy.

我看到有人在推廣「為每個 query fan-out 都發布一個頁面」。我的意思是，這些內容可能只是另一個頁面的一部分，甚至被略過。這看起來就是垃圾內容。

OpenAI already is. Some of the info has been found in the code and you can see it in the roles they're hiring for. Anthropic seems content to partner on that for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do it eventually or acquire a provider for it, maybe after their IPO.

OpenAI 已經在做了。部分資訊在程式碼裡找得到，從他們招募的職位也看得出來。Anthropic 目前似乎滿足於和別人合作，但如果他們最終自己做，或收購一家供應商，也許在 IPO 之後，我也不會意外。

Mentions, recommendations, accuracy of what's said, citations, and all the way through to clicks and conversions, plus probably some fuzzy math on uplift and more tracing users across different journeys is what companies should probably be measuring.

公司大概應該衡量這些：提及、推薦、說法是否準確、引用，一路到點擊與轉換，再加上一些對提升幅度的模糊估算，以及更多跨不同旅程的使用者追蹤。

I mean look at rank trackers. They're a commodity. It's not a product differentiator, but an entry point for most tool suites. You could just use GSC average rankings, but you get slightly different data so it still exists.

你看看排名追蹤工具。它們已經是日用品了，不是產品的差異化，而是多數工具套件的入口。你大可以直接用 GSC 的平均排名，但資料會略有不同，所以它仍然存在。

If the AI companies start providing this kind of data around what people search and where you're shown, there will be a bubble pop. We're already starting to see this from Google and Bing for their AI search features.

如果 AI 公司開始提供這類資料，例如大家搜尋什麼、你出現在哪裡，就會有泡沫破裂。我們已經開始在 Google 和 Bing 的 AI 搜尋功能上看到這種情形。

The companies will have to do a lot to grow into and justify their valuations, and they will have to expand the scope of their toolsets quite a bit. Profound you already see doing that with agents and all, but I bet they start going more into things like paid, social, fuller digital marketing and all as they work to continue their growth trajectory.

這些公司得做很多事，才能成長到配得上自己的估值，而且必須大幅擴大工具組的範圍。Profound 你已經看得到他們靠 agent 之類在這樣做，但我猜他們會更往付費廣告、社群、更完整的數位行銷等方向走，以延續成長軌跡。

I'll do 3, because after this it's all pretty minor imo and these technically contain multiple concepts.

我就講 3 個，因為在這之後，我覺得都算次要，而且這些項目本身其實就包含多個概念。

1. Content — Is this the right answer? Relevant, useful, and appropriate for the query’s context. Includes headings, passages, format, and freshness when needed. Focus on what your page contributes: original research, firsthand experience, unique data, a useful tool, or a clearer explanation. 2. Quality / Authority / Credibility — Why should anyone trust it? Demonstrate experience and expertise, support claims, and earn recognition from credible sources. E-E-A-T. Links are part of this. 3. User response — Does it satisfy the searcher? See Navboost.

1. 內容——這是正確的答案嗎？是否與查詢情境相關、有用且恰當。包括標題、段落、格式，以及需要時的時效性。聚焦在你的頁面貢獻了什麼：原創研究、第一手經驗、獨特資料、實用工具，或更清楚的解釋。 2. 品質／權威／可信度——憑什麼讓人相信？展現經驗與專業，支持你的主張，並獲得可信來源的肯定。就是 E-E-A-T。連結也屬於這一塊。 3. 使用者反應——是否滿足搜尋者？見 Navboost。

Content is your most important thing for ranking, period. This is not an area where I'd tell people to cut corners.

內容是排名最重要的事，沒有之一。這不是我會建議大家偷工減料的地方。

In less competitive markets / verticals, this strategy can be valid. How are the posts ranking? Are they driving value? Sometimes there just isn't much competition and the bar can be this low. If the posts are ending up top 5, I would say they have a strong argument to keep doing what they're doing.

在競爭較小的市場／垂直領域，這個策略可能行得通。這些貼文排名如何？有帶來價值嗎？有時競爭就是不多，門檻可以低到這樣。如果貼文最後能排進前 5，我會說他們有很好的理由繼續這樣做。

In competitive markets / verticals, you might do this and rank like 30th-50th, driving 0 visibility or value. The content you're putting out is things that have already been said. There's not much value to that.

在競爭激烈的市場／垂直領域，你這樣做可能只會排到 30 到 50 名，帶不來任何曝光或價值。你發布的內容都是別人已經說過的，沒什麼價值。

In modern systems, once you have say 4-5 pages that all kind of corroborate the info and say the same things, you start discounting anything that's just more of the same. What you start looking for is that added value along with can it be trusted, did they back it up. The systems want something that adds value to the corpus of knowledge.

在現代系統中，一旦有大約 4、5 個頁面都在互相佐證資訊、說著同樣的事，系統就會開始對只是「更多同樣內容」的東西打折。它們要找的是額外的價值，以及這能不能被信任、有沒有佐證。這些系統要的是能為知識庫增加價值的東西。

Plus, that kind of thing is more interesting for users than more of the same. I know for years I could just read the top results and they were all basically the same. That's boring. You need to stand out, especially if you're not one of the ones already at the top.

而且，這種內容對使用者來說也比「更多一樣的東西」有趣。我知道這麼多年來，我只要讀前幾名結果，它們基本上都一樣。那很無聊。你需要脫穎而出，尤其當你還不是已經在頂端的那些人之一。

I love this question because it's such a gray area! The key is to stand out, to do something different, to make something better than any person / company would have ever done before. On my personal site, I have several lenses that are basically a choose your own path kind of thing, but instead of 1 article, I have a beginner, advanced, and sometimes even an executive lens. On a traditional SEO blog, you're typically going to get 1, a beginner version.

我喜歡這個問題，因為它很灰色！關鍵是要脫穎而出、做不一樣的事、做出比任何人或公司以前做過的都更好的東西。在我的個人網站上，我有好幾種「視角（lens）」，基本上是自選路線，但不是只有 1 篇文章，而是有初階、進階，有時甚至還有主管視角。在傳統的 SEO 部落格上，你通常只會拿到 1 篇，也就是初階版本。

Also on a typical SEO blog, you might get a checklist or template, whereas I used AI to help make those, some scripts, decision trees, mental models, etc. No one in their right mind would put in that kind of effort in the past. Or if I said I want to make demo videos with use cases for 100+ free tools, no way I get buy-in and resources for something like that. But with AI, I just ask and it does. It's better for users, but the kind of thing that again no one would ever put that much effort into the things in the past. This is the kind of thing I'm bullish on being successful.

另外在一般的 SEO 部落格上，你可能會拿到檢查清單或範本，而我用 AI 幫忙做出了那些，還有一些腳本、決策樹、心智模型等等。過去沒有人頭腦正常會投入那樣的心力。或者如果我說我要為 100 多個免費工具製作附使用情境的示範影片，我不可能得到那樣的認同和資源。但有了 AI，我只要提出要求，它就做出來。這對使用者更好，但也是過去沒有人會為這些事投入那麼多心力的那種東西。這就是我看好會成功的做法。

I'd say also keep it relevant to what you do or what you want to do. There are some plays I see that just seem sketchy because they are so vaguely relevant and it's an obvious traffic grab. Not that grabbing traffic is bad, but really think if the page is useful for users is a better goal with traffic as a side effect of that.

我還會說，要保持與你所做的事、或你想做的事相關。我看到有些做法顯得很可疑，因為相關性太牽強，明顯就是在搶流量。搶流量不是壞事，但真的要想一想，頁面對使用者有沒有用是更好的目標，流量只是附帶的結果。

As far as launch strategy, I'm a fan of launching MVP and improving. There are risks to this for quality though and your website could potentially take a hit. It also gives a longer runway for traction to do it this way, so tradeoffs. The problem with MVPs traditionally was that people might let that be the final state, or it sits for a year or 2. With AI, we can iterate and improve much faster, so there is less risk, so I definitely prefer to just get things out asap, but I might weigh this differently depending on the company/team.

至於上線策略，我偏好先推出 MVP 再改進。不過這樣在品質上有風險，網站可能會受到打擊；這樣做也讓累積成效的時間拉得更長，所以有取捨。MVP 傳統上的問題是，大家可能就讓它停在最終狀態，或是擱置一兩年。有了 AI，我們可以更快地迭代與改進，風險就小得多，所以我絕對偏好盡快上線，不過我可能會依公司或團隊不同而有不同的權衡。

I mean Google says don't do it for traffic, but why can't it be both? If it's genuinely useful and it benefits you, I see that as a win-win. But if your main focus is the traffic and not how to be useful for users, you're probably doing it wrong.

我是說，Google 說不要為了流量去做，但為什麼不能兩者兼顧？如果它真的有用、對你也有好處，我認為這是雙贏。但如果你主要在意的是流量，而不是怎麼對使用者有用，那你大概做錯了。

I'm a fan of "as early as possible". Search demand is available via a number of tools. If you know you're going to be building in a certain direction, there's no reason you can't go ahead and create content around that topic. Then when you launch the product, you already have some credibility and assets available where you can pitch the product.

我偏好「越早越好」。搜尋需求可以從很多工具取得。如果你知道自己要往某個方向發展，就沒有理由不先圍繞那個主題建立內容。等到產品上線時，你已經有一些可信度和資產，可以拿來推廣產品。

Most of the industry would tell you to do keyword clustering, etc. I've used a bit of a different process for a decade or so now. Start with pages. Export all the top pages of everyone in your niche and create a big pivot table that gives you a rolled up view of successful content in your niche. Start there.

業界多數人會叫你做關鍵字分群等等。我大概十年來用的是稍微不同的流程：從頁面開始。匯出你所處利基領域所有人的熱門頁面，做一個大型樞紐分析表，得到這個利基領域中成功內容的彙總視圖。從這裡開始。

Later you can look at clusters and figure out gaps by looking at your rankings vs competitors and traffic from different keywords vs them and all. That part is more work, but start simply by just saying these are commonly successful pages in my niche. Create those.

之後再看分群，比較你和競爭對手的排名、各關鍵字帶來的流量，找出缺口。那部分比較費工，但一開始很簡單，就是先說「這些是我的利基領域裡常見的成功頁面」，然後把它們做出來。

The cost equation changed a bit. I'd say pages where it wasn't worth the resources to create in the past, you have more wiggle room now. I'd put more effort into pages with more potential still, but pages that would have never been created in the past I would create now as long as it's valuable / useful to people. Some topics that have no search volume really but are important gaps I would still create.

成本的算式有一點改變了。我會說，過去不值得投入資源去做的頁面，現在你有更多彈性。我仍然會把更多心力放在潛力更大的頁面，但過去絕不會做的頁面，只要對人有價值、有用，我現在會去做。有些主題幾乎沒有搜尋量，但是重要的缺口，我還是會做。

As for as creating for AI search, I mean it's all for people. If people find it valuable and useful, do it. A lot of the research studies at Ahrefs got a ton of traffic from AI search. These aren't things that typically were searched in Google, and they were mostly created for thought leadership and because they were useful and interesting. They did well on social media for sharing, but this kind of content never did well in Google, but does okay in AI search.

至於為 AI 搜尋而做，我是說，這一切都是為了人。如果人覺得有價值、有用，就去做。Ahrefs 的很多研究從 AI 搜尋獲得大量流量。這些東西過去通常不會有人在 Google 搜尋，主要是為了思想領導力、因為有用又有趣才做的。它們在社群媒體上分享得不錯，但這種內容在 Google 從來沒有表現好過，在 AI 搜尋裡卻還不錯。

When I was doing this for my site, I was creating a whole topic catalog and taxonomy. Some of the things appeared from AI, some were from competitor sites where pages had no traffic, others from my own knowledge of what would be useful despite there being 0 search volume or traffic to relevant pages showing in tools.

我為自己的網站做這件事時，是建立完整的主題目錄與分類架構。有些來自 AI，有些來自競爭對手網站上沒有流量的頁面，還有些來自我自己的判斷：即使工具顯示相關頁面搜尋量為 0、沒有流量，我也知道什麼會有用。

Both more important and less important at the same time.

同時更重要，也更不重要。

With newer / agentic systems, you can basically just fix all the things, run tooling, create custom tools for what isn't there, and just have it all pretty much automated.

有了較新的、agent 式的系統，基本上你可以把所有問題都修掉、跑工具、為還沒有的東西自己做工具，讓這一切大致自動化。

There's a lot of older systems out there and they will continue to exist for a while. For these kinds of sites, it's harder to make changes and they're more likely to break a lot of things and get things wrong, so more important.

外面還有很多老系統，而且還會存在一陣子。對這類網站來說，修改比較困難，也更容易弄壞很多東西、出錯，所以更重要。

As far as what AI can handle well, I'd say a decent number of things it gets wrong by default. Where an SEO comes in is to realize what it's getting wrong. Pipe in tools and tests to help find the issues and fix the things. But at this point, SEOs probably shouldn't be clicking around checking things, they should build the tools that do it. I had a gap working with clients and JavaScript things, so I built https://patrickstox.com/tools/render-gap/ to check the things I was checking manually. Now I can just call this and run it on different page types rather than spending several minutes on each page checking things.

至於 AI 處理得好的部分，我會說有不少事情它預設會做錯。SEO 的價值在於認出它哪裡做錯，接上工具與測試來找出問題並修正。但到了這個階段，SEO 大概不該再到處點來點去檢查，而是該建立做這件事的工具。我在和客戶處理 JavaScript 相關問題時有個缺口，所以做了 https://patrickstox.com/tools/render-gap/ ，來檢查我原本手動檢查的項目。現在我只要呼叫它，就能在不同頁面類型上執行，不用在每個頁面花好幾分鐘檢查。

One fun story with AI. I built a lot of tools and wanted to make sure that the tools could actually flag the issues, so I built broken.patrickstox.com as a test bed with issues I needed to be flagged. When I first ran all my tools across it, 30% of the issues weren't flagged. AI decided to remove those issues from my tools instead of actually fixing the tools to flag the issues. That's why we still need people.

一個有趣的 AI 故事。我做了很多工具，想確認這些工具真的能標出問題，所以我建了 broken.patrickstox.com 當測試場，放進我需要它標出的問題。我第一次把所有工具跑過一遍時，有 30% 的問題沒被標出來。AI 決定把那些問題從我的工具裡移除，而不是真的去修工具讓它標出問題。這就是為什麼我們仍然需要人。

You and I are definitely on the same page on how this should be. I wrote standards for it nearly a decade ago when I was at IBM and called it "Language First". They adopted it in a website simplification project a bit after I had left the company. This solves a lot of headaches imo.

你和我對這件事該怎麼做的看法絕對一致。我差不多十年前在 IBM 時就為此寫過標準，叫作「Language First」。我離開公司後不久，他們在一個網站精簡專案中採用了它。我認為這解決了很多頭痛問題。

Theoretically, no. You'll run into sitemap size issues with that many hreflang so you won't hit the max URLs in those sitemaps.

理論上沒有上限。你會先遇到 sitemap 大小的問題，因為 hreflang 那麼多，所以在那些 sitemap 裡你不會碰到網址數上限。

But without that, I'd say the max might really be how many you can submit. That's 500 sitemaps in GSC (say all index files), so 500 sitemap indexes of 50,000 sitemaps and each of those sitemaps with 50,000 URLs = 1.25T URLs.

但如果不考慮這點，我想上限可能其實就是你能提交的數量。在 GSC 裡是 500 個 sitemap（假設全是索引檔），所以是 500 個 sitemap index，每個含 50,000 個 sitemap，每個 sitemap 又含 50,000 個網址，總共 1.25 兆個網址。

The APIs would be a different request than for the HTML, so I'd say etag / 304 is still useful. For lastmod, probably when you make a change to the actual content of the page rather than the content retrieved with the API.

API 的請求和 HTML 的請求不同，所以我認為 etag / 304 仍然有用。至於 lastmod，大概應該是在你更動頁面實際內容時才更新，而不是 API 取回的內容有變動時。

No idea on the Amazon PPC.

Amazon PPC 我不清楚。

For ecom SEO, things I typically look for on category pages are actually around product selection and the facets to make sure you have the kinds of things people want, and that those facets are seen (yay, JavaScript issues). Usually things like a better selection and more products on a page kind of thing work better than stuffing in content.

做電商 SEO 時，我在分類頁通常看的其實是商品選擇與篩選條件（facet），確認你有提供大家想要的東西，也確認這些篩選條件能被看見（對，JavaScript 問題）。通常，更好的商品選擇、一頁放更多商品這類做法，比硬塞內容更有效。

I'll be honest, this is out of my wheelhouse. I've worked on 1 Google news site for a Discover issue that took all of 10 minutes of my time. That's my entire experience with news. You're better off talking with some of the folks who work in the industry like Max Prin, John Shehata, Lily Ray, Barry Adams, etc.

老實說，這不是我的專長。我只處理過 1 個 Google 新聞網站的 Discover 問題，花了我整整 10 分鐘。這就是我對新聞領域的全部經驗。你最好去問業界的人，像是 Max Prin、John Shehata、Lily Ray、Barry Adams 等等。

I would suspect that getting indexed quickly and with the correct version (canonicalization) would be important topics to consider since I've seen a lot of indexing issues with news sites in general.

我猜，快速被索引、以及被索引的是正確版本（canonicalization），會是需要考慮的重要議題，因為我看過新聞網站普遍有很多索引問題。

There's always one isn't there? See r/iamverysmart .

總是會有這麼一個人，不是嗎？請看 r/iamverysmart。

Most of that is more a dev issue (thanks Codex and Claude) and not related to SEO. For the headings, it's a homepage... It ranks for my name. Why focus on things that don't matter?

那些多半是開發層面的問題（謝了 Codex 和 Claude），和 SEO 無關。至於標題標籤，那是首頁……它本來就只是用來排我的名字。為什麼要在意不重要的事？

As for caching, it's Cloudflare and I'm changing things constantly on the site right now. That's just the HTML, but the astro and other assets are 1 year immutable, images are 1 week.

至於快取，網站放在 Cloudflare 上，而我最近一直在改網站。那只是 HTML，Astro 產生的資源與其他檔案是一年不可變快取，圖片是一週。

Congrats on finding the nofollow on my bot honeypot trap I guess?

恭喜你找到我機器人陷阱頁裡的 nofollow 吧，我想？

First, I want to say that I still have a great relationship with Ahrefs. It's a great company full of great people with a great product. I'm still a fan and user! They've been extremely good to me even after leaving, and for that I am really grateful.

首先我想說，我和 Ahrefs 的關係仍然很好。那是一家充滿優秀人才、擁有很棒產品的好公司。我仍然是粉絲，也還在用！即使離開後，他們對我依然非常好，我對此真的很感激。

I worked a lot on the product side of Ahrefs with new features, new tools, etc. With AI, the lines for what I could do vs what devs could do really blurred. So much so that I was asked to just start building things full time. This actually seemed like a lot more work and pressure for me, at a time when I actually needed to take my foot off the gas for a bit for personal reasons. What they wanted from me vs what I wanted just didn't align at the time, so I put in my notice.

我在 Ahrefs 做了很多產品相關的工作，包括新功能、新工具等。有了 AI，我能做的事和開發人員能做的事之間的界線變得很模糊，模糊到公司要我乾脆全職開始做東西。這對我來說其實是更多工作和壓力，而我當時因為個人因素，正需要稍微放慢腳步。公司對我的期待和我想要的，在那時就是對不上，所以我提出了離職。

I enjoyed the variety of the job I had, which let me kind of bounce between marketing and product and go speak at some conferences here and there. It was the best job I've ever had, and definitely the most fun. All the data, the side projects, etc were a blast.

我很喜歡我那份工作的多樣性，讓我可以在行銷和產品之間切換，偶爾去一些研討會演講。那是我做過最好的工作，也絕對是最有趣的。所有的資料、副專案等等都很好玩。

I'm already doing some consulting, but I don't think I'll do the whole agency thing. I'm also building tools for SEO + a bunch of niche content sites I've been wanting to do for a while.

我已經在做一些顧問案，但我不認為我會走開代理商那條路。我也在做 SEO 的工具，以及一批我想做很久的利基內容網站。

I have 26 different ones planned. I may not get through that many, but I legitimately believe I can build better versions of most websites. I want to change how people view what is even possible for websites.

我規劃了 26 個不同的網站。我可能做不完那麼多，但我真心認為我能做出比多數網站更好的版本。我想改變大家對「網站到底能做到什麼」的看法。

The one that is furthest along besides my personal website is a recipe website.

除了我的個人網站，目前進度最快的是一個食譜網站。

I mean, I still use Ahrefs. Otherwise, I built a bunch of free tools on https://patrickstox.com . Other than that, my subscriptions are AI models.

我是說，我還在用 Ahrefs。除此之外，我在 https://patrickstox.com 上做了一批免費工具。再來，我的訂閱就都是 AI 模型了。

Claude and Codex, and occasionally a Chinese model. It all changes so fast, that I tend to just keep trying new things. I will say I'm pretty impressed by Opus 5.5 and Sol 6.1. Appreciate that we now seem to have both smart and efficient and the models just keep getting better and better. I tend to lean towards Anthropic for content creation. Coding can go either way. Translation can also go either way. Pulling data / processes I lean towards Codex because of the weekly limits and all the resets from Tibo. lol. Chinese models for security or sometimes if I'm looking for something in code / network requests because they will actually do it.

Claude 和 Codex，偶爾用中國的模型。變化太快，所以我傾向持續試新東西。我得說，我對 Opus 5.5 和 Sol 6.1 印象深刻，很高興現在我們似乎同時擁有聰明又有效率的模型，而且它們一直越來越好。內容創作我偏向 Anthropic。寫程式兩邊都可以，翻譯也是兩邊都可以。擷取資料、跑流程，我偏向 Codex，因為每週用量限制，還有 Tibo 一次次重置額度。哈哈。資安相關，或我想在程式碼／網路請求裡找東西時，我會用中國的模型，因為它們真的會去做。

I kind of am. You can see it on my site how I break down the topics / subtopics. I even have a learning path. It's all AI written at the moment, but with some pretty crazy processes in place for the creation. I do plan to actually go through each article and improve them though.

算是吧。你可以在我的網站上看到我怎麼拆解主題與子主題，我甚至有一條學習路徑。目前全部是 AI 寫的，但建立內容的流程相當誇張。不過我確實打算逐篇檢視並改進。

See https://patrickstox.com/technical-seo/

請看 https://patrickstox.com/technical-seo/

Is it the future, yes. I said from day 1 for Letaido that there was no moat though, that it was a grab for market share. And I think conflating it with Agent A and making it an Ahrefs thing was a mistake. It was months ahead of competitors and many of the features launched with the project back in April are actually making waves as innovative at OpenAI DevDay yesterday. The writing was on the wall for where things were going, Ahrefs just put it together very early and had a massive lead, but didn't make enough noise about it. If they had, they probably could have had a billion+ dollar exit for it by now.

它是未來嗎？是。但我從 Letaido 的第一天就說過，它沒有護城河，那是一場搶市占率的行動。而且我認為把它和 Agent A 混在一起、變成 Ahrefs 的東西是個錯誤。它領先競爭對手好幾個月，4 月隨專案一起推出的許多功能，在昨天的 OpenAI DevDay 上被當成創新而引起話題。趨勢早已擺在眼前，Ahrefs 只是很早就把它整合起來、領先一大段，卻沒有大張旗鼓地宣傳。如果有，他們現在大概已經能以十億美元以上的價格賣掉它了。

Ha! RTI International which runs the O*NET system for this is about 15 minutes from my house. I don't know that we need a new role for this though such much as a bit of a curriculum shift. I only did the first one so they could build degrees in colleges towards digital marketing.

哈！負責營運 O*NET 系統的 RTI International 離我家大約 15 分鐘。不過我不覺得需要為此設一個新職位，比較需要的是課程內容的調整。我當初只做了第一個，是為了讓大學能開設數位行銷學位。