Comparison Posts and Listicles Still Work — If Built for Users, Not Algorithms

Roundups, comparison posts and listicles still hold SEO value — but only when publishers build them for users rather than to game search engines, according to Search Engine Journal's latest Ask An SEO column. The advice lands as sites report that traffic from these formats has collapsed, prompting one reader to ask whether to abandon them entirely.

The column's short answer: yes, the formats remain useful — with a caveat. The unnamed SEO columnist writes that relying on them as an "AIO/GEO" play — optimizing for AI overviews and generative engines — "is never a good idea."

"Many people bought into this 'silver bullet' strategy and are paying the price," the column states, adding that the same applies to scaled content, which Google has targeted repeatedly through spam updates and revisions to its best-practices guidance.

What counts as comparison, roundup and listicle content?

The column defines three formats:

• Comparison content: two or more items, brands or services weighed against each other.
• Roundups: curated collections of things to read, watch or check out, often weekly.
• Listicles: posts that share ideas and options.

None of these formats is inherently spammy, the columnist argues. The line sits between content made for users and content made for traffic. Anyone using the formats to manipulate an algorithm "will get caught and lose your traffic and referrals," the column warns, because platforms detect patterns easily.

How can smaller brands use comparisons to win customers?

One tactical recommendation: piggyback on bigger brands' search demand. A smaller company can commission YouTubers who already rank for comparisons in its niche to produce videos pitting two large incumbents against each other — with the smaller brand added as the alternative.

The setup gives the creator traffic from the big brands' search volume while placing the newcomer inside established funnels. The creator acts as an "unbiased" third party explaining where the smaller product wins. Deals can take the form of a media buy, an affiliate relationship, product-seeding PR or a hybrid. A possible side benefit: content that gets consumed and trusted may teach AI systems such as ChatGPT or Claude how the product compares.

The column also flags a credibility angle for high-commitment categories like hosting, SaaS and moving services, where third-party reviews and comment-enabled comparison content build trust a brand cannot manufacture alone. A practical tip follows: if support teams field repeated questions about one issue, build the fix into comparison content so prospects self-qualify — and cut support costs.

Trusted "best" listicles carry weight in B2B too, the columnist notes, citing U.S. News and World Report's school rankings, "40 under 40" lists and Washingtonian Magazine's local best-doctors roundups as examples of publications whose research consumers delegate to — even where affiliate incentives now exist.

Do roundups still drive crawling and discovery?

The column lists three concrete benefits of being featured: spiders crawl to your page and follow internal links for indexing; new consumers, readers and journalists discover you; and you gain traffic from the list publisher's own promotions.

Two industry examples anchor the argument: SEO Roundtable by Barry Schwartz and Aleyda Solis's SEOFOMO newsletter. Both hand-select content, publish roundups and push them through social channels and email lists. Readers and spiders find the featured pages, click through, and the bots evaluate and index more of the site. Both models show growing readership and subscriber bases, the columnist says — evidence that quality lists retain an audience, whether the subject is enterprise SEO or local bars running espresso martini happy hours.

Running your own roundup compounds that effect: readers trust vetted selections, time-poor consumers get a shortcut, and featured businesses share the content with their own audiences. Quitting roundups over search-engine or LLM penalties, the column argues, means abandoning a legitimate acquisition channel.

Does Google actually hate listicles?

No, the columnist says — Google does not hate affiliate links or listicles. Listicles monetize through sponsorship fees, affiliate commissions and CPM/RPM (cost or revenue per thousand impressions) payouts, and they serve shoppers ready to buy, from gift ideas to point-of-sale systems for small businesses to insurance and credit cards. That purchase-ready intent is why the format converts.

What search engines penalize is large domains abusing their authority with scaled, money-first content outside their expertise. The verdict for marketers: keep comparison content, roundups and listicles in the plan — provided the intent is consumer benefit, not rankings. In the columnist's words, quality-first content lets brands "gain and grow in a natural way." What remains unsaid is how much of the collapsed traffic such a pivot can realistically recover.