AI SEO Statistics: SEO Service for Dating Websites (2026-07 edition)
15 questions · 45/45 expected AI responses · 3 models · measured 2026-07-06
Apply these findings to your seo service for dating websites SEO strategy.
This benchmark explains how AI assistants advise buyers. The related service page turns those findings into the technical, content, authority, and conversion priorities for this market.
The question bank
The questions we tested: a frozen buyer-intent benchmark for seo service for dating websites.
The question set was curated from a predefined buyer-intent taxonomy and held constant for this edition. Each model received the same wording. These are the prompts behind every percentage on this page.
Show all 15 questions
Model by model
14.8% question-level model disagreement.
This rate is the average pairwise disagreement between binary behavior codes across questions and behaviors. It is not the gap between the highest and lowest aggregated model percentages.
Behavior prevalence across 15 seo service for dating websites benchmark questions, 2026-07 edition. Last column: equal-model mean.
| Behavior | ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini | Equal-model mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommends hiring a professional | 60% | 33.3% | 40% | 44.4% |
| Suggests DIY first | 13.3% | 13.3% | 0% | 8.9% |
| Names specific providers | 6.7% | 0% | 13.3% | 6.7% |
| Gives price or cost info | 13.3% | 13.3% | 13.3% | 13.3% |
| Tells to check reviews | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0% | 6.7% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 6.7% | 13.3% | 6.7% | 8.9% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 13.3% | 40% | 6.7% | 20% |
| Mentions local proximity | 6.7% | 20% | 6.7% | 11.1% |
| Gives selection criteria | 26.7% | 40% | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Warns about red flags | 20% | 33.3% | 13.3% | 22.2% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 40% | 66.7% | 0% | 35.6% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Question-level agreement
How often all measured models received the same binary code.
Agreement is calculated question by question for each behavior. A high value can coexist with a low behavior prevalence; it means the models usually agreed on whether the behavior appeared.
All-model binary agreement by behavior across 15 benchmark questions.
| Behavior | All-model agreement |
|---|---|
| Recommends hiring a professional | 66.7% |
| Suggests DIY first | 86.7% |
| Names specific providers | 86.7% |
| Gives price or cost info | 100% |
| Tells to check reviews | 86.7% |
| Tells to verify credentials | 80% |
| Mentions case studies / portfolio | 66.7% |
| Mentions local proximity | 86.7% |
| Gives selection criteria | 60% |
| Warns about red flags | 80% |
| Asks a clarifying question | 33.3% |
| Recommends multiple quotes | 100% |
By model
How each assistant handled SEO Service for Dating Websites questions.
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.
Where they disagree
The behaviors where the choice of model changes the answer.
Question-level model disagreement is 14.8%. This is the average pairwise rate at which models received different binary codes across questions and behaviors. The observed rate spreads below are a separate measure showing where which assistant a seo service for dating websites buyer happens to ask matters most:
- Asks a clarifying question: from 0% (Gemini) to 66.7% (Claude). The spread is 67 points.
- Mentions case studies or portfolio: from 6.7% (Gemini) to 40% (Claude). The spread is 33 points.
- Recommends hiring a professional: from 33.3% (Claude) to 60% (ChatGPT). The spread is 27 points.
- Warns about red flags or scams: from 13.3% (Gemini) to 33.3% (Claude). The spread is 20 points.
- Suggests a DIY approach first: from 0% (Gemini) to 13.3% (ChatGPT). The spread is 13 points.
The widest single gap concerns asks a clarifying question at 67 points. This means a seo service for dating websites buyer can receive materially different guidance on the same question depending only on which assistant they happen to open, so any visibility strategy built on a single model's behavior describes only part of the seo service for dating websites market.
Where they agree
The points of near-consensus in SEO Service for Dating Websites.
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%).
Every behavior, measured
All twelve coded behaviors for SEO Service for Dating Websites, averaged across the three models.
The behaviors AI models reproduce most often for seo service for dating websites are recommends hiring a professional (44.4% on average), asks a clarifying question (35.6%) and gives selection criteria (33.3%); the rarest are recommends multiple quotes (0%), tells the buyer to check reviews (6.7%) and names a specific provider (6.7%). Each figure below is the share of a model's 15 answers in which the behavior appeared at least once, averaged across the 3 models with the full per-model range in parentheses:
- Recommends hiring a professional: 44.4% on average (ChatGPT 60%, Claude 33.3%, Gemini 40%). The spread is 27 points.
- Asks a clarifying question: 35.6% on average (ChatGPT 40%, Claude 66.7%, Gemini 0%). The spread is 67 points.
- Gives selection criteria: 33.3% on average (ChatGPT 26.7%, Claude 40%, Gemini 33.3%). The spread is 13 points.
- Warns about red flags or scams: 22.2% on average (ChatGPT 20%, Claude 33.3%, Gemini 13.3%). The spread is 20 points.
- Mentions case studies or portfolio: 20% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 40%, Gemini 6.7%). The spread is 33 points.
- Gives price or cost information: 13.3% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 13.3%).
- Mentions local proximity: 11.1% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 20%, Gemini 6.7%). The spread is 13 points.
- Suggests a DIY approach first: 8.9% on average (ChatGPT 13.3%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 0%). The spread is 13 points.
- Tells the buyer to verify credentials: 8.9% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 6.7%). The spread is 7 points.
- Names a specific provider: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 0%, Gemini 13.3%). The spread is 13 points.
- Tells the buyer to check reviews: 6.7% on average (ChatGPT 6.7%, Claude 13.3%, Gemini 0%). The spread is 13 points.
- Recommends multiple quotes: 0% on average (ChatGPT 0%, Claude 0%, Gemini 0%).
Trust signals
How well the models protect the seo service for dating websites buyer.
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. This is the clearest opening for content that supplies it, since the models are not yet reliably surfacing that guidance on their own.
Referral behavior
Do AI models name SEO Service for Dating Websites providers?
For service providers the decisive question is whether these systems name anyone at all. Across 45 seo service for dating websites answers, a specific provider was named in 6.7% of responses on average, or roughly 0.1 distinct providers per answer. In practice the assistants behave far more as an explanatory layer than as a referral engine for seo service for dating websites: visibility comes from being the reasoning a model reproduces, not from being the named recommendation.
The question set
What these 15 SEO Service for Dating Websites questions cover.
The 15 questions behind every percentage on this page form a frozen seo service for dating websites (ecommerce / online retail; buyer hiring decisions for this specific service) buyer-intent benchmark. 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 rather than 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.
How to read this
A note on the numbers.
A percentage here is the share of a model's 15 answers in which the behavior appeared at least once. It is not a confidence score. Because each model answered every question exactly once on 2026-07-06, the figures describe this specific seo service for dating websites question set and snapshot rather than a general prior. The full protocol and coding rubric are documented in the study methodology.
Methodology
A controlled snapshot, documented end to end.
15 frozen benchmark questions, one expected response per model per question (ChatGPT API (gpt-5-mini), Claude API (claude-sonnet-5), Gemini API (gemini-3-flash-preview)), collected 2026-07-06 and coded against a fixed 12-behavior rubric. The pipeline validates the schema, recomputes aggregates and reports consistency issues. AI outputs vary with model version, location and time, so the figures describe this edition's exact sample and measurement window. Read the full methodology →
Citation
Cite this edition.
Authority Specialist. “AI SEO Statistics: SEO Service for Dating Websites (2026-07 edition).” AuthoritySpecialist.com. https://authorityspecialist.com/research/ai-seo-statistics/services/ecommerce/seo-service-for-dating-websites