Answer
Sep 17, 2025 - 03:27 PM
The short answer is, it's likely a "zero evidence of this" and we have no evidence of that it is necessary or valuable...and we're not the only ones. See this post about a test from an SEO consulting firm that did a test to check how AI is digesting structured data and if it matters at all.
When it comes to information, AI is looking to provide information that serves people (not code-related SEO hacks)....so if you're servicing people well on your site through the content (not the structured data)...that is what it wants to and will feed on and spit back out, as well as reference. As more time goes on we're getting the sense that "SEO Experts" are just selling this because it's something that justifies their time and makes them money:) With the Q&A content, we've seen this in spades....we don't see structured data holding anybody back (or giving anybody an advantage).....it's about the content. Content remains King....not ways of manipulating the publishing of content. Focus on your customers' requests and fulfill those requests in the best way possible....and you're going to do great. Google needs it, AI needs it...and most importantly, people need it.
What Data Is There (Doesn't Seem to Exist?)
What's interesting about this, is if you search Google for "FAQ schema impact on AI Results" you get this as the top article result:
https://www.frase.io/blog/faq-schema-...
And within that post....you see quotes like this:
"FAQ schema (FAQPage structured data) is critical for AI search visibility because it has one of the highest citation rates among schema types, according to GEO research from 2024. The question-answer format mirrors how ChatGPT and other AI platforms present information, making extraction and citation more reliable than unstructured content."
But...if you actually look at the research it's referencing and do a search within it....it doesn't mention the word "Schema" even once:
Isn't that odd? It also doesn't have any mention of "FAQ" which is also odd....
And also no reference to anything around "structured data" as you can see here:
Isn't that odd as well? We actually found this with all of the top results for that search, trying to find that information of how this claim was being made. All of them seem to be regurgitating the same fluffy information/communication....but from what we've seen so far, it doesn't seem to be based on anything that's directly attributable to FAQPage schema.
We'd love to know the research and data behind FAQPage schema having an actual impact on AI visibility....but to date we've not seen any and if you look at the top results/sources that are communicatng that it is important....it doesn't seem to support that conclusion with real data. Making it more odd, the purpose FAQPage schema is directly contradicting how it's being applied (for a page that specifically is only a list of questions and answers...an actual "FAQ Page") .....so recommending that a customer implements something outside of what it's purpose is based on no data (if you've actually seen it, please contact us because we'd love to know).....a bit odd, no?
Let's Ask AI to Answer This Question
Why don't we just drill down on this a bit more using AI:) When we ask if there is any data behind these claims....here is the answer:
So....interesting how this is being communicated about and ecommerce merchants are rushing to do it, because they're being told that it will have an impact on AI visibility.
It's never really made sense to us.....AI is reading the internet "as a person" so they can introduce content that people will read. So, in an ideal world....it would do everything as a person to serve people....and a person doesn't look at schema. It doesn't care about the code underneath the page, it just cares about good content. We suspect that the reason there's even any correlation...is the pages where there is good and clear to understand and read content that would have been cited anyway, happens to have FAQPage schema added to it. We asked AI about this....
We used Google's AI to dig into this topic as well...and the main sources of these claims around FAQSchema were here within their results:
So...you'll see the first source is the one we've already covered above. The second result is from a "Case Study" that appears to not exist anymore, and the last one is an article that makes a lot of claims but doesn't actually reference the studies that lead them to draw those conclusions. It's probable that the content is just published doing what content marketers have been doing for years.....
1) They do keyword research
2) They see what competitors are performing
3) They create a competitive article based on the articles they read (content that's already out there)
4) Those articles feed the AI models, and that's what AI spits out...regardless of it being founded or not.
This also highlights why the creation of real expertise from real experience is critical, not only for customers but for AI and Google to feed on. That's why Google continues to steer towards "people first content" and why they and any AI engine will need to continue doing so, so they're not introducing results that aren't actually true or useful. That's why we've seen explosions in the Q&A content generated through Answerbase, and why we think it's going to continue.
Now and into the future, AI (just like Google) just needs you to publish content that services real people in a way that is easy for PEOPLE to read. As you do that, the AI reads it, creates it's models and understand which sites and pages are doing that well...and will cite those pages when it feels it's appropriate. So, the idea that you'd take significant time and resources thinking about this vs just helping customers through clear and helpful content, it's probably a misuse of time and resources. Now, if you have nothing else to do or spend time and money on, is it worth a "why not?"....we can't speak to that. It appears to be misuse of what the FAQPage schema was made for.....but we don't have any data on whether it actually hurts anything. We suspect, that the AI and Google are just looking at the content....and servicing people through that.
Trust Your Resources and "SEO Experts"
If you've been sold on the fact that adding FAQSchema is critical for AI visibility, you should really think about what's being communicated to you and how...and whether it's feeding their revenue streams or if it's actually a useful way to use your marketing budget. We've come across this A LOT in the SEO ecosystem.....so we always communicate the above.....but let's see what happens when you ask this question to AI:
But again....see it's "Value-based" and our conclusion is the value is in the content itself that is actually serving people. Since AI wants to introduce it's answers to people, they're interested in the content that is published to people to understand what best serves people (not what can be manipulated by the SEO ecosystem to try to game results). So, if you have the time and money to do anything....focus on creating and publishing more helpful content that actually demonstrates your experience and expertise on the topic and is simply the best answer out there for every question that your customers and target customers have. We continue to see that perform notably, and since Google and AI needs that content....they'll crawl it, cite it, and drive recognition and traffic to your brand through you being the source of it.
So, just be careful. There are a lot of people who are doing what is in their self-interest vs the interest of the ecommerce merchant. So, just use your common sense and ask them to provide the data behind their claims.....or you may end up spending a lot of time and money on things that don't actually matter....but rather distract you from the things that actually have an impact.
We'll keep you up to date if we find anything compelling here, but the above seems to be the current state of things. We always try to lead our customers to execute on things that are actually worth spending time, money, and energy on....especially given how many ecommerce merchants are strapped for effectively allocating their marketing and resources as it is.....so the above is the current state with this topic. We'll update it if we see any compelling evidence that it's actually worth spending time and money on.....vs just servicing your customers and leveraging that knowledge/content to publish for AI to feed on.
