Receipts.
Including the bad bits.

A portfolio of sites in different niches with different goals. Here's the honest headline: impressions arrive fast, clicks do not. Early sites sit at a click-through rate well under 1%, at average positions deep enough that almost nobody clicks.

That looks like failure if nobody told you what to expect. It isn't. It's what the first weeks look like: you get indexed, you start appearing for things, you appear far down the page, and almost nobody clicks a result at position 22. Clicks come when position improves, and position improves with time and authority. The impressions are the leading indicator - they're the proof the machine has understood what you're about and started showing you to people.

The mistake this page exists to prevent: concluding at day nine that the site failed, rewriting everything, and resetting the clock. Most people quit somewhere in this exact gap.

Different goals, so different definitions of working. This is the part generic SEO advice gets wrong: an enterprise product sitting at 150 impressions a day can be perfectly healthy, while the same number on an affiliate site means something is broken.

No screenshots. This table is read from the Search Console API by the same pipeline that runs the sites, and rewritten every day - a screenshot would be a snapshot of a moment I chose, which is exactly the kind of evidence this page exists to not accept.

This block is generated from the live corpus by the same pipeline that runs the sites. It fills in once enough Search Console history has accumulated - which is itself the honest answer to "how fast does this happen".

Every plan here makes predictions with a metric, a threshold and a date. They're listed before they're known, and they get marked hit, missed, or revised-with-a-reason. A missed claim is fine. An ungraded claim is the only real failure.

Yes, this includes the commercial ones. If the $497 audit doesn't sell, that will say so here - publishing only the claims that land would make this page worthless, and it's the only page on the site that has to be beyond argument.

• Source: Google Search Console, web search type, own properties, read through the API. Search Console lags roughly three days, so the most recent day shown is always a few days behind today.
• Windows differ. The site table covers a rolling 28 days so it is comparable across sites; the benchmark below is indexed to each site's own launch date, which is the only fair way to compare curves that started months apart.
• No paid traffic is included in any of these numbers. This is organic search only.
• Goal type is declared, not inferred. Volume sites are judged on clicks and their onward money step; enterprise products are judged on a small set of qualified enquiries. Same process, different definitions of working - deliberately.
• Regenerated daily by the same pipeline that runs the sites and pushed straight to this page, so these numbers cannot quietly drift from what the data says. If the date at the top stops moving, the pipeline has stopped - which you can hold me to.