Kyle Eggleston publishes studies on AI content and Google AI Overviews

Chicago SEO consultant Kyle Eggleston has released two studies on kyleeggleston.com that examine how Google cites pages in AI Overviews and how a fully AI-written site performed through multiple Google updates. The research adds first-party data to ongoing debates about AI content, rankings and AI search visibility.

Why it matters: - The studies address two high-stakes questions for search marketers: whether AI-written content can perform in Google Search and which pages Google chooses to cite in AI Overviews. - The findings could influence how businesses approach content production, ranking strategy and AI search visibility.

What happened: - Kyle Eggleston, a Chicago SEO consultant with more than 20 years in search, published two original studies on kyleeggleston.com. - The first study, "How to Rank in AI Overviews," analyzed 400 US searches and matched every AI Overview link against the organic top ten for the same queries. - The second study, "AI Content Case Study: Three Google Updates, Zero Setbacks," tracked a website written entirely with AI tools from launch on April 27, 2026 through September 13, 2026. - Eggleston said the results show that a site written with AI does not automatically fail when Google updates its ranking systems.

The details: - The AI Overviews study started with 3,804 keywords across ten verticals and used Ahrefs SERP snapshots captured between September 1 and September 24, 2026. - After removing Google Shopping cards and unresolvable redirects, the study found 1,561 outside citations among 1,764 links in the overview blocks. - Just over half of all citations, 51.0%, pointed to a URL already ranking in the organic top ten. - The share rose to 63.7% when measured by domain. - A page ranking first organically was cited in 56.0% of the overviews studied. - A page ranking eighth organically was cited in 9.9% of the overviews studied. - Among pages cited from outside the top ten, 99.2% still ranked in Google's top 100 for at least one keyword. - YouTube was the single most-cited domain, with 265 citations across 145 of the 400 overviews. - Reddit accounted for 5.1% of citations and had no citations in the health vertical. - The AI content case study recorded 1,978 clicks and 127,262 impressions in Google Search Console. - The site had an Ahrefs Domain Rating of zero and no dofollow backlinks. - The site grew through the May 2026 core update, the June 2026 spam update and the August 2026 spam update without a ranking setback. - Eggleston said the site's results were not explained by backlink tricks and argued that the useful question is what the published pages do for readers.

Between the lines: - The AI Overviews data suggests Google still leans heavily on pages already performing well in organic search. - The case study points to a more nuanced picture than a simple "AI content gets penalized" narrative. - Eggleston frames the case study as one anonymized example, not proof that every AI-written site will succeed. - The report also says the study does not show that backlinks never matter or that the updates caused every increase. - The AI Overviews report describes correlation, not causation, and covers a single snapshot of US desktop results.

What's next: - Both studies are available in full on the kyleeggleston.com blog with methodology, limitations and underlying numbers. - Eggleston's current practice now centers on SEO, local SEO, AI search visibility and answer engine optimization for businesses in Chicago and nationwide. - His site also offers free tools including an SEO Tools Directory, an SEO Resume Builder and Ask Kyle, an AI assistant trained on his published work. - Eggleston says his work now reflects a shift toward AI-native development and AI search visibility.

The bottom line: - Eggleston's research suggests Google still rewards pages that are already visible in organic search, while AI-written content can still gain traction under the right conditions.