The "People Also Ask" (PAA) box – that little dropdown of related questions Google serves up in its search results – has become the SEO world's shiny new object. The promise is seductive: answer these questions, rank higher, get more traffic. But let’s inject a dose of data-driven skepticism, shall we? Because a closer look suggests PAA might be more of a mirage than a goldmine.
The core argument for targeting PAA is simple: Google is literally telling you what people want to know. Optimize your content to answer those questions, and you'll be rewarded with higher rankings. Makes sense, right? Except...what if the questions in PAA aren't actually representative of what most people are searching for? What if they're a curated, limited selection designed to keep people searching, not to satisfy their initial query?
That's the nagging doubt that keeps cropping up in my analysis. The volume of searches related to PAA queries is often surprisingly low. Tools like SEMrush or Ahrefs estimate search volume, and for many PAA-derived keywords, we're talking about double-digit, maybe low triple-digit searches per month. That’s not exactly a tidal wave of potential traffic. (And that's assuming those tools are accurate – a generous assumption, I might add).
Consider this: Google’s business model thrives on keeping users engaged. The longer you spend on Google, the more ads you see. Could it be that the PAA box is less about directly answering your question and more about leading you down a rabbit hole of related queries, thereby increasing your session time? It's a cynical view, perhaps, but one supported by the data (or rather, the lack of compelling volume data).
Another concern: the PAA algorithm seems prone to creating an echo chamber effect. Once a question starts appearing in the PAA box, it’s more likely to appear in other PAA boxes, creating a self-reinforcing loop. This means that optimizing for a PAA question might just be optimizing for a question that's already over-optimized. I've looked at hundreds of these search results pages, and this pattern is hard to ignore.
Think of it like this: it's like everyone at a party crowding around the same conversation, even if it's not the most interesting one. The PAA box amplifies certain questions, regardless of their actual relevance or search volume.
And this is the part of the analysis that I find genuinely puzzling: Why are SEOs so focused on chasing these relatively low-volume queries when there are likely higher-impact keywords being neglected? Is it simply because PAA feels "easy"? Is it a case of mistaking activity for progress?
The biggest problem with hyper-focusing on PAA is the opportunity cost. Time spent crafting content to answer obscure PAA questions is time not spent on more strategic SEO initiatives: building high-quality backlinks, conducting thorough keyword research, creating truly valuable and comprehensive content.
It's a classic case of diminishing returns. You might see a small bump in traffic from ranking for a PAA query, but that bump is unlikely to justify the effort involved. It's like trying to fill a swimming pool with a teaspoon. You'll eventually get there, but there are far more efficient ways to do it.
So, is targeting "People Also Ask" a complete waste of time? Not necessarily. It can be a useful source of inspiration for content ideas, and it can help you understand the nuances of user intent. But treating it as the holy grail of SEO is a dangerous mistake. The data simply doesn't support the hype. Focus on building a solid SEO foundation, and treat PAA as a supplementary tactic, not a primary strategy.
