-
Mod Sharing: The LLMS/EEAT/Schema Spam we get
Posted by on March 31, 2026 at 3:10 pmHey r/SEO
We wanted to share an example of the flood of spam we get – even more than the other subs currently platforming GEO/LLMs.txt/Schema/EEAT content. And how much time and money is being invested into it by – well, we don't know who really.
This is a counter-study – we assume to the SE ranking one we shared. The account that posted it is zapped.
We get about 20 of these a day – trying to push a narrative using conjecture, fake case studies, claims of analysis – by people who dont have the time, tools, understanding or interest in doing so.
We dont know who creates these or why – or why they keep pushing them on our sub. As mods, we get to see what other communities they post to – most of the time.
Its pretty vast – 20 of these a day equates to 6000 in year – its very, very determined and unrelenting.
This part of the reason we have a restriction on case studies – because not all of these accounts are zapped – many of them survive – most of them have low karma, very low CQS scores, some have very high karma.
But they all share something in common: they are fabrications and fabrications of claims of fabricated events designed to further pollute the public about SEO.
-
1 Reply
-
Some dude a few week back posted a case study where he create ‘llm tools’ that were declared in the llm txt, with custom endpoints etc.
Claimed llm referral up 75% after a few weeks
Tried it out for a few weeks because why not, from his post I was able to infer how he did it. Results? Nothing out of the ordinary. Your post makes me think I was played for… Reasons?
For context : main website has 1.5M sessions per month, gets regularly crawled by llms, so any effect would’ve been quick to show up
-
where’s the line between spam and someone sharing results from something they tested? The post in that screenshot seems pretty transparent about what they did and what they observed.
Log in to reply.