1,181 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
17 Oct 2022
I increased monday,com’s traffic by 1,570% via SEO. I compiled 4hrs of video showing the exact strategy.
Like Reply with 👋 and I’ll DM it to you for free, right now.
(I’ve lead SEO for 100 SaaS startups)
2,362
240
4,072
Jun 9
It’s wild how upset people get about “chemicals” (btw water is a chemical compound) and artificial sweeteners.
Folks, 70% of the nation is at an unhealthy weight. Being overweight is the single worst thing for your health by orders of magnitude not comprehensible by the human brain.
If eating some low calorie artificially sweetened foods help you drop said weight, the health benefit from that weight loss is infinitely more powerful than the negligible to no impact of artificial sweeteners on your health.
Jun 9
David is trying to silence us.
They sent us a cease and desist for sharing what's actually in their products.
David's founder previously built RXBAR a brand famous for clean, simple ingredients.
Now he's built David, a protein brand whose bars have over 15 ingredients, including a chemically modified fat your body can't digest and artificial sweeteners.
Their new frozen dessert claims to have:
- 30g protein
- 260 calories
- under 2g sugar
Here's how they get away with it
Instead of real milk fat, David uses EPG a plant-derived oil chemically restructured with propylene oxide so digestive enzymes can't break it down. It passes through your gut mostly intact and that's why the calorie count looks so low.
For sweetness they chose sucralose
- same in Quest bars
- reduced insulin sensitivity in healthy adults
- sucralose-6-acetate, a compound present in commercial sucralose, damaged DNA in human cells in vitro
- linked to gut microbiome disruption
We shared publicly available ingredients and published research
David's response was to send a legal letter telling us to stop talking.
That's exactly why Oasis exists
To break down what's actually inside these products, the ones with great marketing AND the ones that are actually clean
1
3
921
May 20
We’ve seen a 2x increase in lead volume per month, attributed entirely to AI search.
We already had more leads than we could take on, and AI search has dumped 27 more per month on our calendar.
The catch? 99% are trash.
Lazy. Zero intent. No affinity. Bad leads.
2
4
633
Apr 29
This company was just acquired for FIVE BILLION and they can't hire smart enough talent to realize that building 90% exact match backlinks is a bad idea?
3
828
Apr 16
Everyone in SEO is obsessed with serving B2B SaaS.
Here to tell you it’s overrated.
Everyday I see another agency I’ve never seen before claiming B2B SaaS is their niche focus.
I have worked with the largest of them, literally, by publicly traded market cap, and they don’t spend as much as brands you’ve never heard of in a million years.
I have clients who sell manufactured pole barns in ONE LOCAL STATE that spend more on SEO than publicly traded SaaS companies….
And guess what? The don’t suffer from the absolute churn and burn employee turnover that SaaS has, where your POC job hops every 6 months to pad their LinkedIn CV and you get fired because the new POC brings in their own agency they have preferred deals with, no matter how successful you were.
SaaS is insanely overrated to provide services to.
Historically all of my single sales call closes, up to $50k/mo contracts for a year on the first call by the way, we’re not in SaaS!
7
11
1,311
Apr 16
Plus, as I mentioned, there are like..unlimited SaaS SEO agencies now.
When I started there were very very few. Now there are new ones daily.
You are competing again 20 very great agencies for clients who don’t even spend that much in comparison to other niches that are historically underserved and have far more budget, more stability in growth, and far less job turnover, etc.
2
434
Apr 14
Claude got 10x worse and it instantly exposed how many people are already over reliant on AI.
41
9
237
22,187
Apr 12
True also of SEO, at least in AIs current state.
AI is designed to sound smart. If you do not actually know what you’re doing, it makes you believe you do.
The amount of sales leads I speak to on a monthly basis who clearly have a ChatGPT generated list of questions is astonishing.
Asking all of the generic basic irrelevant questions that reveal, to anyone with strong expertise, a lack of expertise.
We’ve been told that “AGI is already here” and “AI is taking your job tomorrow” — it’s only natural that people believe AI is already failure proof.
It’s so incredibly far from it. Anyone with deep experience in their space knows this.
And this wave of DIYers who think AI can replace everything they pay for is in for a rude awakening.
I’m already seeing this BTW.
MANY conversations each month and new clients SOLELY because they’ve tried to automate SEO and trusted an “SEO plan” from Claude etc, only to have no results, or worse results than they previously had.
If you are truly an expert at what you do, you are going to make so much money fixing AI issues caused by poor operators, managing AI for you skill set in a business, or implementing it for others.
Expertise is more valuable than ever.
Apr 11
We will likely have more lawyers in the future than today, because:
1) AI will cause so many more people to ask legal questions which will encourage them to need to verify or execute through an actual lawyer.
2) AI will cause an explosion of more and more exotic legal terms that lawyers will be spending even more time reviewing redlines or new cases around.
3) All the new areas of law that now are emerging around the use of AI itself in every single industry. AI introduces an explosion of IP, privacy, and regulatory compliance challenges across all verticals.
This has historical precedent as well. Between the creation of the PC and the internet (both technologies that made the legal profession far more efficient), the ABA pegs active attorneys having gone from roughly 400,000 in 1975 to roughly 1,375,000 in 2025.
When we make professions more efficient and automated, often demand for them goes up not down.
3
13
2,891
Apr 10
TLDR: Headings, no fluffy content to hit word counts, FAQs, EEAT.
So, good SEO!
Also, citations are not a great metric IMO. Across 65 clients, almost no measurable impact comes from citations, mostly from mentions at BOFU.
Interesting regardless!
hostinger.com/uk/tutorials/a…
2
623
Apr 4
Genuinely so glad people believe this absolute nonsense.
Makes me so much more money in multiple ways:
1. My competition is ai slop lords who have no clue how to drive actual enterprise value with SEO — “more content gooder” is literally my competition 😭
2. Companies come to me needing someone to fix the massive mess this strategy always creates, I rightfully charge a lot for it
3. Links become more and more and more important by the second as it’s the only SEO lever that will never be automated
I get stoked when I see more people believing this stuff!
Apr 3
SEO can get you thousands of customers for free.
The catch? You need to write dozens or hundreds of articles.
Introducing Replit SEO Generator - generate SEO-optimized articles with AI.
20
1
54
10,106
Mar 31
I talk to 35 new companies every month about SEO and GEO.
Almost all of them are making the same data mistake...and they're building 2026 budgets around it.
They all say the same thing: "AI search leads are so much better."
When I ask how they arrived at that conclusion, it's always the same story:
They're comparing all of their Google organic traffic, for example 200k visits a month across every funnel stage, to AI search leads, which are almost exclusively bottom of funnel.
Of course the AI leads convert better. You're comparing apples to burgers.
Here's what actually happened over the last 12 months and why your data is sh**.
CTR and traffic dropped massively for tons of keywords. Yet revenue from organic search stayed flat.
Why? Because most of what you were ranking for was vanity top-of-funnel junk that never moved the needle. Broad, informational keywords now eaten up by AI overviews and LLMs.
Zero-click searches (hat tip / coined by @amandanat!).
You didn't lose revenue, just vanity traffic that never made a difference in the first place.
Now look at AI search:
Brands nearly only get mentioned when someone asks for a specific solution. "I run a small business and need payroll services, what's a good fit for a 10 employee company?"
The LLM spits out 5-6 tools. That's it. That's the only time you show up. It's as bottom of funnel as it gets.
So when you compare 200k monthly organic visits where maybe 2,000 are meaningfully contributing to revenue against a channel that is ONLY purchase-intent recommendations, what exactly are you measuring?
Nothing useful.
Without proper data filtering, you can't make this comparison. And if you're making resource allocation decisions without it, you're making a huge mistake.
GEO and SEO are not the same when it comes to data, intent, and usage. Stop treating their numbers like they're interchangeable.
9
2
23
1,873
Mar 28
No they are not. This absolute garbage content is parroted by people who clearly have no experience and have made zero money in SEO for themselves or their clients.
Any real SEO who actually has driven results is not worried about Claude “scoring content for AI citation readiness” as a replacement for $12k/mo services.
Genuinely hilarious when people post this kind of content. It’s an instant tell that they lack any experience whatsoever.
13
1
70
8,926
Mar 27
There is literally a group of “SEOs” on X that post “get a free backlink from XYZ directory, it’s DR90!”
Folks. Please. Stop. If you can create a free directory link it’s not valuable. Please use your brain.
16
3
75
7,197
Jeremy Moser retweeted
Mar 18
One of the worst things you can do for AI search visibility?
Destroying your SEO performance with shiny new AI search tactics that are ultimately dangerous for SEO - and by extension - AI search.
In my latest Substack article, I wrote about the fundamental connection between SEO and GEO/AEO, along with some of the risky tactics I've seen sites employing, plus the early signs that these approaches are dangerous for SEO (and therefore AI search as well).
lilyraynyc.substack.com/p/yo…
18
38
186
30,776
Mar 16
Literally does…no tasks that an actual CMO does 🤣
Starting to realize 95% of AI tools are just marketed towards stingy solopreneur SMBs.
People who want to pay $10/mo rather than make the key hires or investments needed to actually grow their biz.
Today we're introducing the world's first AI CMO.
Enter your website and it deploys a team of agents to help you get traffic and users.
Try it now at okara.ai/cmo
86
23
410
48,398
Jeremy Moser retweeted
Mar 13
I love how the viral BS posts get 1,000 likes on here, but posts like this that speak the truth? 🦗🦗🦗
Good representation of the state of our industry right now actually
Mar 13
"This GEO tactic gets you cited in LLMs!"
"Interesting. How do you know that...?"
"My research bro. I analyzed 10,000 prompts bro. All of the brands cited in ChatGPT have pages with expert quotes, statistics, inline citations, structured formatting, and topical depth…"
"Ok…sure, but did the page get cited because it had those features? Or did it have those features because it was already high-authority content that performs well everywhere...and AI search just picked it up too?"
Nobody peddling GEO fairy dust wants to answer this question.
Right now, a huge chunk of GEO research is treating correlation like causation. Like these content traits are brand new levers you can pull to "get cited in AI search."
Do X, get cited. Simple.
Except: if everyone can just add charts and tables to a post and get cited, how does AI determine YOUR brand gets mentioned in a short output of 5 solutions in a space where thousands exist?
It can't just be "do X tactics." That math doesn't work. What actually separates the brands getting cited? The same thing that's always separated them: real authority.
Google's own "How Search Works" documentation states openly that links are a core signal for content quality. AI is very similar. HubSpot found that 92% of AI mentions come not from your own content, but third party sites mentioning you.
So when someone says AI engines cite content with quotes, data, and good structure, they're simply observing a trait of authoritative content in general, not a "do x and get Y" causation factor.
And even if these content tweaks do influence AI citation likelihood, SparkToro's recent research found there's less than a 1 in 100 chance that ChatGPT or Google AI will give the same list of brand recommendations in any two responses...even on the identical prompt run 100 times.
The lists are different. The order is different. The number of results is different. Nearly every response is unique...so the agencies selling revolutionary GEO hacks are building on two broken assumptions: that these tactics directly cause citations (unproven), and that the outputs are consistent enough for those tactics to track reliably (they're not).
AI search is real. It matters. Heck, we generate tons of leads from it. But the brands winning there are the same ones that have been winning everywhere... because they built actual authority over years, not because they added a data table to a blog post last Tuesday.
Our own AI visibility increased the most by doing one thing: acquiring mentions links on publications talking about our niche: being in more places that AI pulls from, increasing the likelihood AI mentions our brand.
12
3
64
9,705
Mar 13
"This GEO tactic gets you cited in LLMs!"
"Interesting. How do you know that...?"
"My research bro. I analyzed 10,000 prompts bro. All of the brands cited in ChatGPT have pages with expert quotes, statistics, inline citations, structured formatting, and topical depth…"
"Ok…sure, but did the page get cited because it had those features? Or did it have those features because it was already high-authority content that performs well everywhere...and AI search just picked it up too?"
Nobody peddling GEO fairy dust wants to answer this question.
Right now, a huge chunk of GEO research is treating correlation like causation. Like these content traits are brand new levers you can pull to "get cited in AI search."
Do X, get cited. Simple.
Except: if everyone can just add charts and tables to a post and get cited, how does AI determine YOUR brand gets mentioned in a short output of 5 solutions in a space where thousands exist?
It can't just be "do X tactics." That math doesn't work. What actually separates the brands getting cited? The same thing that's always separated them: real authority.
Google's own "How Search Works" documentation states openly that links are a core signal for content quality. AI is very similar. HubSpot found that 92% of AI mentions come not from your own content, but third party sites mentioning you.
So when someone says AI engines cite content with quotes, data, and good structure, they're simply observing a trait of authoritative content in general, not a "do x and get Y" causation factor.
And even if these content tweaks do influence AI citation likelihood, SparkToro's recent research found there's less than a 1 in 100 chance that ChatGPT or Google AI will give the same list of brand recommendations in any two responses...even on the identical prompt run 100 times.
The lists are different. The order is different. The number of results is different. Nearly every response is unique...so the agencies selling revolutionary GEO hacks are building on two broken assumptions: that these tactics directly cause citations (unproven), and that the outputs are consistent enough for those tactics to track reliably (they're not).
AI search is real. It matters. Heck, we generate tons of leads from it. But the brands winning there are the same ones that have been winning everywhere... because they built actual authority over years, not because they added a data table to a blog post last Tuesday.
Our own AI visibility increased the most by doing one thing: acquiring mentions links on publications talking about our niche: being in more places that AI pulls from, increasing the likelihood AI mentions our brand.
15
12
76
14,528
Mar 9
*filters ALL non branded keywords including tons of top of the funnel that will literally never convert
*compares that to AI search which nearly only recommends solutions when a prompt is bottom of funnel
*thinks there is a profound (pun intended) takeaway from the data
Mar 6
Webflow VP says their signup conversion rate from Al-referred traffic is 36% and 14% for non-branded SEO traffic.
linkedin.com/posts/jgrant5_4…
3
2
21
3,735
Mar 9
I think this is happening everywhere, not just SWE.
Everyone is outsourcing their thinking to AI.
I catch myself having AI draft or edit very simple emails for me…
Slippery slope where we all lose our actual skills and experience from over reliance on AI models.
6
16
3,338
Jeremy Moser retweeted
College friend makes $20M , senior partner at a massive hedge fund. He is unable to relax & chill. He’s always on, hyper competitive.
People have no clue how hard it is to make that kind of money & what it takes to perform at such an elite level. These guys are built different.
Mar 4
At least 4 of the 6-10 people I personally know who've made $20M multiple years of their lives have struggled with substance abuse
People think "Oh $20M, I'll take that and then quit!"
You have no fucking clue how competitive this world is
Good chance you'll become addicted to a PED you used to manage the anxiety you felt during your ascent to the top
31
72
2,282
406,068
Mar 3
“Everyone can publish everything in 1 second” = infinite competition.
So please elaborate on why your content and not the 5 billion identical Claude posts should rank and drive pipeline?
Congrats you’re back to needing actual SEOs.
Moronic.
Mar 3
🚨 BREAKING: A solo developer just fired the entire SEO content agency industry with one GitHub repo.
It's called SEO Machine.
One API key replaces:
→ The strategist doing keyword research
→ The writer producing content briefs
→ The copywriter writing the articles
→ The editor cleaning up the slop
→ The account manager sending the $5K invoice
Full autonomous pipeline. Keyword to published post.
Zero humans. Zero retainers. Zero excuses.
Powered by Claude so the output doesn't embarrass you.
One person. One repo. Infinite content.
100% Open Source.
Link in the comments.
15
1
51
9,657