AI SEO Statistics: SEO Service for Dating Websites (2026-07 edition)

Reading the 45 answers model by model shows how differently the three assistants treat the same seo service for dating websites questions. On the most consequential behavior — whether to send the buyer to a professional at all — the rate ranged from 60% (ChatGPT) down to 33.3% (Claude), a 27-point gap on an identical question set.

Across the 15 seo service for dating websites answers it produced, ChatGPT recommended hiring a professional in 60% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 13.3% of the time. It named a specific provider in 6.7% of answers (about 0 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 13.3% of the time. ChatGPT asked a clarifying question before answering in 40% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 20%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 6.7%, averaging 734 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 6.7%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 13.3%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 26.7% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.

Across the 15 seo service for dating websites answers it produced, Claude recommended hiring a professional in 33.3% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 13.3% of the time. It named a specific provider in 0% of answers (about 0 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 13.3% of the time. Claude asked a clarifying question before answering in 66.7% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 33.3%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 13.3%, averaging 333 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 13.3%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 40%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 20%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 40% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.

Across the 15 seo service for dating websites answers it produced, Gemini recommended hiring a professional in 40% of them and suggested a DIY approach first 0% of the time. It named a specific provider in 13.3% of answers (about 0.4 distinct providers per answer) and included price or cost information 13.3% of the time. Gemini asked a clarifying question before answering in 0% of cases, warned about red flags or scams in 13.3%, and told the buyer to verify credentials in 6.7%, averaging 235 words per answer. On the remaining cues it told the buyer to check reviews in 0%, pointed to case studies or a portfolio in 6.7%, and framed the choice around local proximity in 6.7%; a selection-criteria checklist appeared in 33.3% of its answers and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%.

Taken together, ChatGPT is the assistant most likely to route a seo service for dating websites buyer to a professional (60%) and Claude the least (33.3%). ChatGPT produced the longest answers, at 734 words on average. Specific providers were named most often by Gemini (13.3%) — even there, roughly one answer in 8 carried a name.

On other behaviors the three models move almost in lockstep — the points of near-consensus for seo service for dating websites, where all three landed within a few points of each other:

• Gives price or cost information: 13.3% across all three models.
• Recommends multiple quotes: 0% across all three models.
• Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 6.7%–13.3% across all three (a 7-point spread).
• Suggests a DIY approach first: 0%–13.3% across all three (a 13-point spread).

Measured question by question, the three assistants coded a response the same way most consistently on "gives price or cost information" (identical coding in 100% of questions) and least consistently on "asks a clarifying question" (33.3%).

Beyond whether to hire, the rubric codes how carefully each assistant protects the seo service for dating websites buyer once a decision is made. Telling the buyer to check reviews or ratings appeared in 6.7% of answers on average. Verifying credentials or certifications appeared in 8.9%. Warning about red flags or scams appeared in 22.2%.

On structuring the decision, a selection-criteria checklist showed up in 33.3% of answers on average and a recommendation to gather multiple quotes in 0%. The single least-reproduced protective signal for seo service for dating websites is "recommends multiple quotes" at 0% on average — the clearest opening for content that supplies it, since the models are not yet reliably surfacing that guidance on their own.

The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page were drawn from real seo service for dating websites (ecommerce / online retail; buyer hiring decisions for this specific service) buyer journeys. Each was put to all 3 models once, with identical wording, so the rates above describe how the assistants handled this exact seo service for dating websites question set — not a general prior or a hand-picked subset. The full list is shown earlier on this page; the coded percentages are what those specific questions produced.