Seven Articles Accounted for Our Net Search Click Growth: A 90-Day Review
By Alexander Fakeri • June 12, 2026 • Digital Marketing
Category
By Alexander Fakeri • June 12, 2026 • Digital Marketing
By Alexander Fakeri • June 12, 2026 • News, Digital Marketing
In our companion article, we outlined MOJO’s process for measuring and improving visibility in AI search. Here, we examine Google Search Console data to see how our website’s organic search performance changed across two consecutive 90-day periods, which articles contributed to the growth, and what the results can tell us.
We compared Google Search Console data for mojo.biz across two consecutive 90-day periods: December 13, 2025 through March 12, 2026, and March 13 through June 10, 2026. Total search clicks increased from 617 to 761, a gain of 23.3%. Looking separately at the exported page-level data, seven articles highlighted below gained a combined 143 clicks, while all remaining pages collectively lost seven. Those articles accounted for more than the net increase in the page-level data.
Here’s what improved, why the overall click-through rate declined, and what these results can and cannot tell us about the strategy.
Comparing March 13 through June 10, 2026 with December 13, 2025 through March 12, 2026, two consecutive 90-day periods:
Clicks: 617 → 761, up 23.3%.
Impressions: 316,667 → 562,732, up 77.7%.
Click-through rate: 0.195% → 0.135%, a relative decline of 30.6%.
The site earned 144 additional search clicks. Impressions grew considerably faster than clicks, so the overall click-through rate fell. These totals show increased search visibility and traffic, but they do not establish what caused the growth. To understand which pages contributed, we looked separately at the page-level data.
To see which pages contributed to the increase, we compared the seven articles highlighted below with all remaining pages in the Search Console page export.
Together, those seven articles went from seven clicks in the earlier 90-day period to 150 in the later period, a gain of 143 clicks. Their combined impressions increased from 4,536 to 66,307.
All remaining pages in the export collectively went from 624 clicks to 617, a net decline of seven clicks. That does not mean every other page declined. Some gained traffic, but their gains were outweighed by losses elsewhere.
Across the exported page rows, clicks increased from 631 to 767, a net gain of 136. The seven highlighted articles therefore accounted for more than the net increase in page level clicks.
These results show that the highlighted articles contributed to organic search growth. They do not establish that GEO caused the increase or demonstrate additional visibility in AI-generated answers.
A note on the numbers: this section uses totals from the exported page rows. The previous section uses site level totals. Search Console can aggregate page level and site level data differently, so we keep those comparisons separate.
Among the seven highlighted articles, the anti-AI backlash piece recorded the largest click gain, rising from zero to 68 clicks. It received 7,226 impressions in the later period, with an average position of 6.33.
Here are the results for all seven articles. Clicks are shown for the earlier period followed by the later period; average positions refer to the later period.
Anti-AI backlash: 0 → 68 clicks; average position 6.33.
Getting your business cited in Claude: 6 → 26 clicks; average position 6.69.
Local SEO in the age of AI search: 0 → 24 clicks; average position 6.08.
Evergreen content in 2026: 0 → 11 clicks; average position 4.98.
AI-powered websites: 0 → 8 clicks; average position 7.75.
Why 58% of Google searches never click anything: 0 → 8 clicks; average position 7.56.
Mapping the AI-influenced buyer journey: 1 → 5 clicks; average position 7.25.
Average position summarizes the positions recorded across a page’s search appearances. It does not mean the page consistently held that rank for every query.
Zero clicks also does not mean a page was absent from search. Several of these articles already had impressions in the earlier period, even though they received no clicks.
The daily data shows that average search clicks increased from the March portion of the reporting period through May, then eased slightly during the first ten days of June.
|
March and June cover partial months, so daily averages provide a more useful comparison than total monthly clicks. CTR is calculated from each segment’s total clicks divided by its total impressions.
Although CTR was lower across the full 90-day period than in the preceding 90 days, it improved within this reporting window. Both observations can be true: they compare different time spans.These site-wide figures show how search performance changed during the period. They do not isolate the seven highlighted articles or establish what caused the changes.
Across the two 90-day periods, site-wide CTR declined from 0.195% to 0.135%. Impressions increased by 77.7%, while clicks increased by 23.3%. The site appeared in search more often, but a smaller proportion of those appearances resulted in clicks.
The page-level data identifies a major contributor to the impression growth: our website design service page. Its impressions increased from 66,896 to 240,644, while clicks remained at 33. That page accounted for approximately 71% of the net increase in impressions across the exported page rows.
Its average position moved from 47.19 to 49.16. The additional impressions therefore did not coincide with an improvement in its average position or an increase in clicks.
The seven highlighted articles showed a different pattern. Their combined CTR increased from approximately 0.154% to 0.226%, calculated from their total clicks and impressions in each period.
These results make the overall CTR decline more understandable. A large increase in impressions on a service page with very few clicks pulled down the aggregate page-level CTR, even as the highlighted articles attracted more clicks and improved their combined CTR.
A falling CTR alone is not proof that GEO is working. Here, the data supports a narrower conclusion: the highlighted articles gained search traffic, while much of the additional search exposure elsewhere did not translate into more visits.
These results show measurable organic search growth, with several limits worth making clear.
First, this is a before-and-after comparison of one website. It identifies which pages gained clicks, but it does not isolate the effects of content changes from seasonality, changes in search demand, or other factors.
Second, the seven highlighted articles are a selected group, not a complete assessment of every article or every part of our strategy. Their combined clicks increased from seven to 150, but the small starting total makes percentage growth look especially large.
Third, this Search Console export measures Google Web search performance. It does not separately establish whether our visibility or citations increased in AI-generated answers, ChatGPT, Claude, or other AI platforms.
Fourth, search clicks are not leads or revenue. This analysis does not show how many visitors became qualified prospects or customers. That requires conversion and sales data.
Finally, service-page performance remains an opportunity for improvement. Our website design page received substantially more impressions but no additional clicks. The gains from the highlighted articles do not mean every part of the website improved.
The supported finding is specific: these seven articles gained a combined 143 clicks and accounted for more than the net increase across the exported page rows. That is a useful result, while the broader business impact remains unmeasured in this analysis.
The encouraging result is that seven articles covering AI, search, and digital marketing attracted more Google search traffic. Together, they gained 143 clicks between the two 90-day periods, exceeding the net increase across the exported page rows.
For a business considering generative engine optimization, or GEO, this is evidence of those articles’ organic search performance. Establishing whether the work also increased visibility in AI-generated answers requires separate measurement.
A useful evaluation should connect three questions: Are people finding your content in search? Is your business appearing in relevant AI-generated answers? Are those interactions contributing to qualified inquiries and sales?
This review answers part of the first question. It provides a baseline for further measurement, while leaving AI visibility and business outcomes to be assessed with the appropriate data.
We compared December 13, 2025 through March 12, 2026 with March 13 through June 10, 2026. Each period contains 90 days. The data comes from Google Search Console’s Web search performance reports for mojo.biz.
Site-wide search clicks increased from 617 to 761, a gain of 144 clicks, or 23.3%. Impressions increased from 316,667 to 562,732, up 77.7%.
In the exported page-level data, the seven highlighted articles increased from seven to 150 clicks, gaining 143. All remaining pages collectively declined by seven clicks, leaving a net increase of 136 across the exported page rows. The seven articles therefore accounted for more than that net increase.
Page-level totals differ from the site-level totals because Search Console can aggregate these views differently. We keep the two comparisons separate.
Impressions increased faster than clicks. The website design service page accounted for approximately 71% of the net impression increase across the exported page rows, while its clicks remained at 33. Its additional impressions contributed to the lower aggregate page-level CTR.
The seven highlighted articles showed a different pattern: their combined CTR increased from approximately 0.154% to 0.226%.
The anti-AI backlash article gained the most, increasing from zero to 68 clicks. In the later period, it received 7,226 impressions and recorded an average position of 6.33. That average does not mean it consistently held the same rank for every query.
Average daily clicks increased from 6.95 during March 13–31 to 7.97 in April and 9.55 in May, before easing to 9.40 during June 1–10. CTR increased across those four monthly segments, from approximately 0.120% to 0.160%. March and June represent partial months.
No. These exports demonstrate Google search performance, but they do not separately establish growth in AI citations or visibility, qualified leads, or revenue. Those outcomes require additional measurement.
Understanding search performance starts with a clear baseline: comparable reporting periods, accurate totals, and a closer look at which pages gained or lost traffic.
This review showed real click growth from seven articles, alongside a service page that gained impressions without additional clicks. That distinction helps identify what deserves further investment and what needs attention.
If you want to understand your own results, contact MOJO Creative Digital to discuss your search performance, your measurement gaps, and the next steps for your business.
👉🏼 Request a Quote from MOJO Creative Digital
MOJO Creative Digital 4157 Mountain Rd. #240, Pasadena, MD 21122 (410) 439-1994
This article was originally drafted with assistance from Claude, an AI model developed by Anthropic, and revised with assistance from ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI. The figures in this revised version were checked against MOJO’s Google Search Console exports, including the two-period comparison and daily performance data for March 13 through June 10, 2026.
