Google warns against breaking content into chunks for AI

Former Google's Search Liaison Danny Sullivan discouraged website owners from fragmenting content into bite-sized chunks specifically designed for large language models, according to the Search Off the Record podcast published January 8, 2026. Sullivan stated that Google's search team does not want creators producing content tailored to ranking systems rather than human readers.

"One of the things I keep seeing over and over in some of the advice and guidance and people are trying to figure out what do we do with the LLMs or whatever, is that turn your content into bite-sized chunks, because LLMs like things that are really bite size, right?" Sullivan said during the podcast episode. "So we don't want you to do that."

The warning addresses specific optimization tactics circulating within the search marketing community following the expansion of AI-powered search features across Google's platform. Sullivan emphasized that he consulted Google's search engineers about this approach before issuing guidance.

"I was talking to some engineers about that. We don't want you to do that. We really don't," Sullivan explained. "We don't want people to have to be crafting anything for Search specifically. That's never been where we've been at and we still continue to be that way."

The statement represents Google's most direct rejection of content fragmentation strategies marketed toward optimizing for AI search results. Sullivan acknowledged that some website owners may currently observe short-term advantages from such tactics but cautioned against building strategies around temporary system behaviors.

Long-term risks of system-specific optimization

Sullivan addressed practitioners who might argue that chunking content produces measurable results. He constructed a hypothetical response from optimization specialists: "Let's assume that in some edge cases, let's even assume maybe in more than some edge cases, you're finding you're getting some advantage here. Maybe tiny degree measure. 'No, this is my secret weapon. It's doing it.' Great. That's what's happening now. But tomorrow the systems may change."

The Google representative outlined consequences for organizations that invest resources in system-specific optimization. Website owners devoting effort to fragmenting content specifically for ranking algorithms risk wasting time when systems evolve, according to Sullivan.

"So you've gone through all this effort. You've made all these things that you did specifically for a ranking system, not for a human, being because you were trying to be more successful in the ranking system, not staying focused on the human being," Sullivan said. "And then the systems improve, probably the way the systems always try to improve, to reward content written for humans. All that stuff that you did to please this LLM system that may or may not have worked, may not carry through for the long term."

Sullivan questioned the business value of reorganizing marketing and content teams around algorithmic manipulation strategies. He asked whether deploying organizational resources toward ranking system exploitation represents the optimal use of time and energy compared to audience-focused content development.

The guidance builds on Google's consistent messaging throughout 2025 regarding AI search optimization. The Search Relations team has repeatedly emphasized that traditional SEO principles remain effective for AI-powered search features, contrary to industry narratives promoting specialized optimization approaches.

Historical context for algorithmic gaming

The podcast discussion situated content chunking within broader patterns of search engine optimization tactics that target specific ranking mechanisms rather than user needs. John Mueller, Google Search Advocate based in Switzerland, noted that practitioners with extensive SEO experience understand the importance of foundational goals over tactical adjustments.

"I think also that many people who have been in the SEO space for a very long time will see this, will recognize that, you know, focusing on these foundational goals, that's what carries you through," Sullivan stated. "What's interesting is we've had a lot of information about our ranking systems come to light over time."

Sullivan acknowledged that as more information about Google's ranking systems becomes publicly available, many practitioners ultimately reach similar conclusions about content quality superseding technical manipulation. "A lot of them come back and go, 'Gosh, you know what? It looks like trying to figure out all this advice, the best thing to do is focus on having really good content,'" he said.

The conversation referenced historical optimization patterns where practitioners focus intensely on small technical details rather than comprehensive quality improvements. Sullivan noted this tension between tactical adjustments and strategic content development has persisted throughout his involvement with search engine optimization.

Mueller highlighted how metric-focused optimization can distort strategic priorities. "I see that also a lot when it comes to metrics from some of these tools where you get something like a spam grade or domain grade and then you kind of get it's almost like this gamification aspect where it's like 'Oh my domain grade is 52. I'm going to improve that to 59 and then Google's going to like me a lot better,'" Mueller explained.

The search advocate emphasized that Google's ranking systems do not reduce website quality to single numerical scores that practitioners can optimize. "Google doesn't essentially diminish your website into one particular number that you can optimize but rather it tries to figure out like what do people actually want to find in search," Mueller said.

Practical applications for different business types

Sullivan contextualized the guidance using hypothetical examples of different business types and their optimization priorities. He suggested that local service providers like plumbing businesses should prioritize customer satisfaction and review generation over content fragmentation strategies.

"John's plumber probably doesn't need to break up their site into discrete bite-sized chunks for LLMs," Sullivan said. "Probably need to spend more time on ensuring that their customers are happy to begin with. Maybe encouraging them to leave reviews into the various review things where you can review for local stuff."

The recommendation extends to content strategy decisions for businesses attempting to attract traffic through information-rich publishing. Sullivan warned against creating content solely because specific keywords generate search volume without considering whether resulting traffic represents qualified prospects.

"If you feel like you need to write about anything at all, you know, then here's the history of plumbing as written by John's plumbers because someone told me that plumbing is the number, you know, ex term on Google. So, I'll write a bunch of stuff about plumbing," Sullivan explained. "And then most of those people who come to my site, if I am successful, aren't even possible prospects for me."

The guidance emphasizes alignment between content topics and business objectives rather than pursuing traffic for its own sake through keyword targeting strategies.

Third-party tool evaluation

The podcast episode addressed broader questions about selecting SEO service providers and tools in the context of AI-powered search features. Sullivan and Mueller discussed how website owners should evaluate external SEO resources and recommendations.

"We don't review or evaluate or recommend any particular SEO tools or companies," Sullivan clarified. "It's not a negative thing. It's not like we're saying we don't say they don't have views. It's just that there's so many of them and we can't go through and that's just not our thing to be doing."

Google maintains official guidance resources including documentation, blog posts, and Search Console tools that provide baseline knowledge for website owners. Sullivan suggested that understanding Google's direct recommendations provides essential foundation for evaluating third-party services.

"We do believe that if you're thinking about being successful with Google search, you should start and be prepared by understanding what we ourselves are already saying and the information we're already providing to you directly," Sullivan said. "That is a kind of important foundation if you decide you want to go on and do more beyond just I'm following my hopes, my dreams, my passions, and my joy."

Mueller emphasized the importance of foundational knowledge for making informed decisions about hiring SEO professionals. "Some amount of foundational knowledge I think makes sense," Mueller stated. "But it's not that you have to basically do all the SEO yourself in order to hire someone to do SEO. You kind of just need to understand what the direction is, what the guard rails are around SEO."

The discussion acknowledged that some SEO tools and service providers offer legitimate value, particularly for technical implementations like website migrations that require specialized knowledge. Sullivan distinguished between services that align with Google's published guidance versus those promoting tactics that conflict with stated policies.

"There are definitely times when you just say, like with anything in life, I might need some additional help here," Sullivan said. "I'm going to move my website from one thing to another, and it's going to be dramatic. There are things I should take into account."

Industry claims versus Google's guidance

Sullivan addressed situations where third-party services claim their recommendations reflect Google's position. He encouraged website owners to request direct citations when service providers attribute specific guidance to Google.

"If you're being told, 'Oh yeah, Google says this, Google says this, what you should be doing,' then maybe ask to see like where we say that directly," Sullivan suggested. "Because I've seen innumerable times where people say Google says to do this and I'm like, we don't say to do that."

The search liaison distinguished between service providers accurately representing Google's published statements versus those interpreting or extrapolating from official guidance. "It's not that we actually said it. It's that someone has interpreted something we've said to be what it is that they want to say," Sullivan explained. "And that's fine. You want to make your interpretations or whatever. Just should just be clear that this is how I interpret it and this is why I think it's perfectly fine."

The conversation highlighted persistent patterns where optimization tactics get promoted with claims of dramatic effectiveness. Sullivan noted the rarity of services marketing themselves with realistic performance expectations.

"You'll see these claims, but they can't guarantee it's going to improve, it's going to make you rank for anything, you're going to get any particular kind of traffic, it's going to last for any period of time to the end of time," Sullivan said. "Nobody can guarantee something until you actually see it happen."

The podcast acknowledged that some third-party resources recommend approaches that violate Google's spam policies. Sullivan encouraged website owners to ask direct questions about potential spam implications before implementing recommendations.

Subset relationship between SEO and AI optimization

Sullivan positioned emerging AI search optimization terminology as falling within the existing domain of search engine optimization rather than representing fundamentally new disciplines. He defined acronyms like AEO, GEO, and LLMEO as specialized subcategories of SEO that address specific search formats.

"To me and and I more Google might be thinking this way too but you know this whole AEO geo loo whatever it is that people are thinking about I need to do for AI format search engines or chat formats or whatever you want to call it to me I'm defining those as a subset of SEO," Sullivan explained.

The framework treats AI-powered search features as particular implementations of search systems rather than requiring entirely separate optimization approaches. "Those are things that people still use to search so if you're thinking about these specific things then that falls into the broad category. I'm trying to be found on search and this is a particular format," Sullivan said.

This categorization applies both to guidance about selecting service providers and to recommendations about optimization tactics. Sullivan clarified that his statements about third-party tools and content strategies encompass AI search optimization subcategories.

"When I start saying this is something that applies to SEO in terms of the guidance for picking somebody or tool or whatever then I'm it equally applies to to the AEO type of stuff," Sullivan stated. The guidance explicitly focuses on Google's systems rather than attempting to address other companies' AI platforms.

The Search Relations team emphasized that successful websites can achieve strong performance without any consideration of SEO technical requirements. "There are plenty of sites to succeed in search. They don't even think about SEO. There's just focus on great content for people," Sullivan said. "And that is the foundation that the bedrock. It is the frame is everything that you want to be successful for in search is built on that great content."

Sullivan encouraged creators experiencing frustration with optimization complexity to prioritize authentic content production. "For the people out there who have been going, you know what? I am just tired of all this SEO stuff. I don't want to do it anymore. I'm just going to think about what I want to write about for people and I'm going to do that. Hallelujah. Great. Just do that," he said.

The search liaison reinforced that Google's ranking systems aim to reward genuine quality content. "That's what we want you to do. We really want you to do that. If writing a blog post is just giving you joy because you know you're going to bring joy to somebody, then find that joy and stick with it," Sullivan stated. "That is the authentic stuff that if we're doing our job and we keep trying to do better, but that's what we want to reward."

Timeline

• May 2025: Google Search Relations team publishes blog post stating AI search optimization requires no changes from traditional SEO
• June 16, 2025: Aleyda Solis releases AI Search Content Optimization Checklist providing framework for AI visibility
• August 14, 2025: John Mueller warns about AI SEO acronym proliferation potentially indicating spam tactics
• August 27, 2025: Mueller issues warning against LLM-generated topic clusters stating such practices create site liability
• October 31, 2025: Lorelight founder shuts down AI visibility tracking tool after concluding fundamentals remain unchanged
• December 11, 2025: Google launches December 2025 core algorithm update affecting ranking systems globally
• December 15, 2025: Google's Nick Fox tells publishers AI search requires identical optimization as traditional search
• December 17, 2025: Mueller and Sullivan publish podcast explaining traditional practices remain effective for AI search
• January 8, 2026: Danny Sullivan explicitly warns against fragmenting content into bite-sized chunks for LLM optimization

Summary

Who: Danny Sullivan, Google's Search Liaison, and John Mueller, Search Advocate at Google Switzerland, issued the guidance during the Search Off the Record podcast. Sullivan consulted with Google's search engineers before making the recommendation public.

What: Google discouraged website owners from breaking content into bite-sized chunks specifically designed to optimize for large language models. Sullivan warned that such tactics focus on manipulating ranking systems rather than serving human readers, and those approaches likely won't survive as Google's systems improve to reward authentic content quality.

When: The guidance was published January 8, 2026, through the Search Off the Record podcast episode. The recommendation builds on consistent messaging Google has maintained throughout 2025 regarding AI search optimization requiring no fundamental changes from traditional SEO approaches.

Where: The guidance applies specifically to Google's search ecosystem, including traditional web search results and AI-powered features like AI Overviews and AI Mode. Sullivan clarified the recommendation addresses content strategy for ranking in Google's systems rather than other companies' AI platforms.

Why: Google issued this warning because search marketing practitioners have been promoting content fragmentation strategies as specialized optimization techniques for AI search results. Sullivan aims to prevent website owners from investing organizational resources in tactics that may produce short-term gains but ultimately fail as ranking systems evolve to reward content created primarily for human benefit rather than algorithmic manipulation.