This study asked one core question: what causes search to show an AI-generated overview for a query, and why does that matter for seo visibility in India and worldwide?
We analyzed 146,122,391 SERPs. Overviews appeared on 20.5% of SERPs (29,991,998) and on 21% of tracked keywords. Those headline numbers set the baseline for every finding below.
By “trigger” we mean a clear choice by Google to display a generated summary in the results for a given query. The study measured 86 keyword traits to find those choices.
The largest drivers include intent, question formats, query length, YMYL risk, topic category, newsiness, NSFW signals and local context. These factors shape whether a page gets cited or bypassed by the summary.
This Ultimate Guide pairs hard data with 2025 trend insight and practical SEO actions. Expect dataset findings, strategic takeaways for marketers, and steps to defend organic traffic and brand reputation based on measurable patterns — not speculation.
Key Takeaways
- Overviews appeared on 20.5% of the 146M SERPs and on 21% of keywords.
- 86 keyword traits were tested to identify measurable patterns.
- Primary drivers: intent, question style, length, YMYL, newsiness, NSFW, and local signals.
- Results inform content, keyword targeting, and brand risk plans for India and global markets.
- The guide links data and research to concrete SEO and marketing actions for 2025.
Understanding Google AI Overviews in Search Results
At the top of many queries, Google surfaced a short synthesized answer drawn from several web pages. These concise summaries gave quick answers and sat above standard organic listings.
What they are: ai-generated summaries combine facts from multiple sites into one compact answer. The snippet included visible sources, so cited pages gained exposure even when click-throughs fell.
How they differ: featured snippets usually extract text from a single page. In contrast, these summaries use multi-source synthesis rather than single-source extraction. That shift moved SEO goals from “own the snippet” to “earn inclusion among cited sources.”
User behavior and SERP role: Most users scanned the summary for a fast answer, checked the listed sources for credibility, and clicked only when they wanted depth. The element layered into the broader search results mix without fully replacing other features.
SEO implication: Optimization required structured, extractable content and clear trust signals. Whether a summary appeared depended heavily on query intent, question complexity, and topic risk—points covered in the next sections.
Key Findings From the 146 Million SERPs Dataset
The baseline matters: overviews appeared on 20.5% of SERPs (29,991,998 of 146,122,391) and on 21% of tracked keywords. Use this share as the reference point for every comparison that follows.
Why the baseline is a planning anchor
For many websites, roughly one in five target keywords could include a branded summary competing for attention. That simple rate helps teams forecast visibility and likely traffic impact across portfolios.
Portfolios heavy in informational, long-tail queries often see higher exposure than the baseline. Compare your keyword sets by intent, query length, and topic to estimate expected AIO share.
Practical interpretation framework
- Use the baseline to label results as higher or lower than normal.
- Track appearance rate, citation frequency, organic clicks, and SERP layout changes over time.
- Measure visibility not only by rank but by being cited inside the summary and mentioned by brand.
This dataset captures scale and gives Indian marketers clear points to monitor for search performance and traffic planning.
Study Methodology and Data Sources Behind the Analysis
How we measured what matters: the research combined a large snapshot with trend-series data to show both scale and change over time. The snapshot quantified presence across 146,122,391 SERPs against 86 keyword traits. The trend layer used 10M+ keywords (Semrush) plus Datos clickstream and targeted subsamples (200K+ queries) to track zero-click and volatility patterns through 2025.
What the 86 keyword traits covered
The 86 traits were practical and actionable. They included intent labels, branded vs. non-branded, query length, YMYL categories, local signals, newsiness, NSFW flags, and classifier categories such as reason, definition, and short_fact.
How SERP features were evaluated
Each SERP was scanned for presence of the generated summary and for co-occurring elements. We recorded citations, People Also Ask, video carousels, maps, and ad density. That allowed us to see which features competed with or complemented the summary on the same results page.
| Dataset | Scope | Primary Use |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot | 146,122,391 SERPs | Quantify presence vs. 86 traits |
| Trend stack | 10M+ keywords (Semrush) + Datos | Measure changes, zero-click trends |
| Target samples | 200K+ specialised queries | Deep-dive on volatility and citation behavior |
Why combine snapshot + trend? The snapshot gives precise rates across keywords and traits. The trend data shows how google search behavior shifted over time, especially during 2025’s rollout volatility. Together they reduce blind spots and guide repeatable measurement.
Practical tooling and next steps: replicate this approach with rank trackers and SERP feature monitors. Track presence, citations, and SERP volatility by query and by content type. Use those signals to prioritize which keywords and pages to protect or to expand in India’s market.
AI Overview Triggers: The Strongest Query Patterns
Certain phrasing and intent make a search query far more likely to receive a concise synthesized answer.
Informational dominance: In the snapshot, 99.9% of summaries that triggered citation were on informational queries. This makes know-style content the primary battleground for visibility.
Questions drive coverage: 57.9% of all question searches resulted in a summary. What/why/how formats often prompt a direct answer, so map content to those question forms and offer short lead answers followed by depth.
Length matters: Longer searches signaled complexity. AIOs appeared on 46.4% of searches with seven or more words. Target multi-part phrasing and long-tail queries in keyword research to increase chances that summaries cite your page.
| Classifier | Trigger Rate | Content cue |
|---|---|---|
| Reason | 59.8% | Use clear cause-effect sections |
| Bool | 57.4% | Offer crisp yes/no with nuance |
| Definition | 47.3% | Start with a short definition then expand |
| Short_fact | 41.2% | Use bullet facts and citations |
| Consequence | 46.7% | Explain outcomes and next steps |
How to use this: Filter keyword lists for question modifiers, multi-part phrasing, and 7+ word queries. Format pages with clear definition blocks, direct answers, and cause-effect headings to match classifier signals. These patterns lift rates well above the baseline and should shape editorial calendars and page templates.
User Intent Signals That Predict When Overviews Appear
Different intent types — from know to visit-in-person — change the likelihood of a synthesized answer. That pattern helps SEOs predict where overviews are most likely and where classic rankings still win.
Intent breakdown vs baseline
The snapshot shows clear gaps versus the 20.5% baseline. Informational (know) matched the baseline at 21.4%.
Commercial (4.3%), transactional (2.1%), and navigational (0.9%) sat well below baseline. That means many buying and brand queries historically avoided summaries.
Know / Do / Visit-in-person / Website mapping
“Know” aligns with informational queries and produced most overviews. “Do” (13.0%) and “Visit-in-person” (7.1%) were lower, showing action-oriented and local searches were less likely to be summarized but not immune.
“Website” (0.9%) rarely triggered a summary, so branded queries stayed safer for clicks and direct visits.
Navigational growth and click risk
Trend data shows navigational overviews rose from 0.74% in Jan 2025 to 10.33% by Oct 2025. This shift signals expanding tests beyond low-risk informational space.
Practical SEO framework for India:
- Classify keywords by user intent and prioritize informational pages for summary inclusion.
- Defend branded queries as navigational risk grows — monitor citation share and clicks.
- Expect overviews to co-occur with PAA and related searches; map layout changes by intent over time.
Branded vs Non-branded Searches and Their Overview Likelihood
Non-branded queries often invited a consolidated answer, changing how brands competed for attention.
Classification: Branded searches name a company, product, or website. Non-branded searches use generic terms or intent phrases without a brand. This difference mattered for planning because it shifted where visibility and clicks landed on the results page.
Core finding and its scale
Data point: Non-branded queries triggered overviews at 24.9% versus 13.1% for branded terms. Put simply, non-branded searches were 1.9x more likely to produce a synthesized answer. Additionally, 76.3% of queries that produced those summaries were non-branded.
Brand visibility, reputation, and click share
Being cited inside the summary could boost perceived authority even when clicks fell. Conversely, absence from citations let competitors dominate the narrative for discovery-stage queries.
Reputation risk: Summaries can define categories, list “best” options, or compare providers. That shapes brand perception early in the funnel and affects demand capture.
Practical tactics for defensive SEO
- Prioritize citation-worthy pages for high-value non-branded terms.
- Strengthen E-E-A-T signals and keep accurate brand facts across sites and trusted sources.
- Monitor branded results closely—navigational summaries grew during the study, so brand-safe queries may not stay safe.
- Combine organic rank work with outreach to earn citation inclusion and protect clicks.
| Metric | Non-branded | Branded |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger rate | 24.9% | 13.1% |
| Relative likelihood | 1.9x | — |
| Share of summary-producing queries | 76.3% | 23.7% |
Content Topics and Industries Most Likely to Trigger Overviews
Some industries lend themselves to short, cited summaries because facts are steady and well-sourced. That pattern explains why certain categories show much higher summary rates than others.
Top-performing categories
Science (43.6%) and Health (43.0%) lead the list. Both have many clear definitions and fact-based answers readers expect. Pets & Animals (36.8%) and People & Society (35.3%) follow for similar reasons.
Mid-tier categories
Internet & Telecom (30.3%), Reference (30.1%) and Computers & Electronics (28.6%) also trigger many summaries. These types of pages offer technical explanations and reference-style content that is easy to synthesize.
Lowest categories and the India angle
Shopping (3.2%) and real estate (5.8%) show low rates because results rely on ads, product modules, and maps. In India, strong local intent and marketplace behaviour reduce the need for generic summaries on real estate and shopping queries.
Food & Drink trend
Food & Drink rose fastest (+7.25% since March). Recipe and publisher sites should note that content marketing must adapt: structured facts and clear citations now improve chances of being cited.
| Category Group | Example Rate | Why it ranks |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | Science 43.6%, Health 43.0% | Definitions, facts, predictable subtopics |
| Mid-tier | Reference 30.1%, Telecom 30.3% | Technical explanations and reference pages |
| Lowest | Shopping 3.2%, Real Estate 5.8% | Local intent, ads, maps reduce summary need |
Strategic implication: Map your content portfolio by category and prioritise formats that can win citations in high-rate areas. Focus on clear facts, short lead answers, and strong sourcing to improve visibility where summaries are common.
YMYL and Sensitive Information: Where Risk Meets High Trigger Rates
Queries about health, money, or safety often demand higher editorial standards from publishers. These topics affect real-world outcomes, so search gives them extra prominence and caution.
Headline contrast and category rates
YMYL queries produced summaries far above baseline: 34.3% vs 17.2% for non-YMYL. Medical YMYL stood out at 44.1%, underlining how often health questions receive concise overviews.
| YMYL Category | Trigger rate |
|---|---|
| Medical | 44.1% |
| Financial | 22.9% |
| Legal | 23.6% |
| Safety | 31.0% |
| Other YMYL | 31.5% |
SEO and brand protection points
For high-risk queries, publishers must show clear sources, expert review, and up-to-date data. Medical pages need visible disclaimers and citations to clinical guidance.
- Publish authoritative brand-owned explainers and sync facts across trusted places.
- Use expert bylines, dated updates, and citation sections to raise citation likelihood.
- Monitor SERPs for misrepresentation and set an accuracy review cadence for sensitive keywords.
Action for India: build accuracy workflows, run proactive SERP monitoring for key queries, and treat YMYL pages as compliance assets, not just content items.
Freshness and “Newsy” Queries: Why Real-time Searches See Fewer Overviews
Real-time searches behave differently because facts shift quickly and search systems often defer synthesis.
Concept: “Newsy” queries ask about events that change by the hour. Search engines prefer lists of sources and Top Stories for these terms. That reduces the chance they will produce concise overviews for a query tied to breaking coverage.
How the data compares
Very newsy keywords showed a low trigger rate of 6.3%, far below the 20.5% baseline. Not_newsy queries triggered overviews at 20.7%, and somewhat_newsy sat at 17.8%.
What that means for publishers
Among pages that produced summaries, 94.2% were not newsy, 5.7% were somewhat newsy, and only 0.07% were very newsy. That shows a clear share concentration in evergreen spaces.
- Chasing breaking news will likely surface Top Stories and live results, not concise syntheses.
- Maintain evergreen explainers to win inclusion where overviews concentrate.
- Separate content workflows: rapid updates for latest terms and detailed explainers for long-lived queries.
Strategy note: If you want to avoid competing with a summary, focus on very newsy terms. To win long-term visibility, build explainers that match how overviews select sources and facts.
Local Searches and Visit-in-person Intent: Why Overviews Often Don’t Show
Queries tied to a place or visit change how search presents information, prioritizing contact details and directions.
Local query structure: Map packs, business listings, reviews, and action buttons deliver what users want—directions, phone numbers, hours, and quick booking options. These elements satisfy intent without needing a synthesized summary.
Data snapshot: Local queries produced overviews at a 7.9% rate versus 22.8% for non-local searches. Visit-in-person intent matched this pattern at 7.1%, showing a consistent drop for place-focused queries.
What this means for Indian businesses
Low local rates are a protective factor for many location-based companies. Good visibility in maps and listings can outweigh long-form content for conversions.
- Optimize your Google Business Profile and local landing pages to capture calls and visits.
- Encourage reviews and keep NAP details current to improve clickthrough and user experience.
- Create short local service pages for conversions and separate evergreen explainers for discovery queries like “best time to visit” or “how to choose.” These informational local pages are the ones most likely to be cited.
Measurement tip: Track local query sets separately so overview trends for non-local searches do not skew your reporting or affect local SEO priorities.
NSFW and Policy-sensitive Queries: Low Likelihood, Clear Patterns
Queries that touch on explicit or regulated topics show a clear pattern of reduced summary exposure.
Headline data: NSFW queries produced synthesized summaries at a 4% rate, versus 21.4% for non-NSFW searches. This gap signals tighter guardrails for sensitive terms.
Within NSFW, some subtypes recorded higher chances but still sat below baseline. Drug-related queries hit 12.6% and scams 11.3%. Even so, both remain under the non-NSFW level.
“Policy-sensitive topics receive conservative handling; systems prefer source lists over single synthesized answers.”
For regulated industries in India, the implication is simple: rely on trusted content and transparent sourcing rather than expecting inclusion in summary blocks.
- Prioritize accuracy, compliance language, and clear citations for legal, medical, or safety pages.
- Treat educational harm‑reduction material differently from explicit content when mapping keywords and content types.
- Ensure websites avoid implying professional advice and keep consistent policy notes across related pages.
Risk management: monitor sensitive terms, use conservative copy that clarifies limits, and build authority so organic results reflect your expertise even when summaries are unlikely.
SEO Impact: Clicks, Zero-click Searches, and SERP Layout Changes
The arrival of a top-line synthesized answer altered attention patterns across organic listings and ads.
Why the click economy shifted. The synthesized answer claimed prime placement, compressing visible organic search real estate below. That moved many quick lookups out of traditional results and into a single answer hub.
Nuanced zero-click behavior. Trend analysis shows zero-click rates for the same keywords fell from 33.75% to 31.53% after the summary appeared. In other words, while queries with summaries often had high zero-clicks, user behavior did not simply become fewer clicks—people sometimes used the summary to find deeper links or follow related modules.
SERP feature overlap
Overviews commonly stacked with People Also Ask (90.03%) and Related searches (95.32%), creating an answer-focused page instead of a list of blue links.
Video carousels and forum blocks (YouTube, Reddit) also rose as alternative visibility slots. These elements are practical entry points when organic rank alone no longer guarantees exposure.
Ads alongside summaries
Paid listings appeared more often on SERPs that included synthesized answers. Google Ads at the bottom showed up on ~25% of those pages, up from under 1% earlier in 2025. That trend makes some competitive queries more pay-to-play and reduces the share of purely organic attention and clicks.
How to defend organic search traffic
- Target protective queries: focus on local, very newsy, and transactional terms that are less likely to be summarized.
- Win citations: craft structured, sourceable explainers so your pages are cited inside the summary and still capture clicks for depth.
- Expand presence: use video and forum-friendly formats to diversify traffic beyond classic organic results.
- Measure actively: use tools to track synthesized presence, citation sources, rank volatility, and page-level traffic shifts.
Strategy synthesis for India: combine technical seo, structured content, and multi-platform visibility so teams are not dependent on a single SERP format. Monitor results closely and prioritize pages that can earn citations or perform well in alternate modules to protect traffic.
Conclusion
Think of the dataset as a map: roughly 20.5% of SERPs and 21% of keywords showed a synthesized overview. That baseline helps teams spot where attention shifts and which queries need protection.
High-risk areas include informational queries, question formats, long-tail (7+ word) searches, and YMYL—especially medical. Safer zones include very newsy, NSFW, local, and many transactional queries.
Practical point: SEO now means earning citation inclusion inside the overview, not just ranking. Build structured content, show expertise, and keep pages updated so search systems cite your sources with confidence.
Monitor overview prevalence, segment keywords by likelihood, and prioritize citation-ready pages. Marketing teams should protect branded and high-converting keywords and diversify visibility across formats to defend traffic.
