Leave with better questions—and a stronger way to answer them.

Section 01 / Evidence first

Because tactics without context are hard to use

An SEO recommendation can sound decisive while leaving out the details that determine whether it fits. The same change can behave differently across a local service business, an ecommerce catalogue and a large publisher. A conference talk is more useful when it explains the problem, the starting conditions, the method and the kind of site for which the lesson may—and may not—transfer.

Google’s public SEO Starter Guide describes SEO as helping search engines crawl, index and understand content. It also cautions that there are no secrets that automatically secure a first-place result. That is a grounded starting point for an event: technical and editorial practice matters, but no single speaker can guarantee how a search system will respond or how a market will change.

The goal is not to collect another stack of disconnected tactics. It is to understand what a tactic is intended to change, what the team needs to implement it, how the outcome can be observed and what would count as a reason to stop. Context helps attendees turn an idea into a responsible decision.

Section 02 / Evidence first

Because a case study should let you inspect the reasoning

SEO results are often shown as a line that rises after a change. The timing may be interesting, but it is not, on its own, proof that the change caused the increase. A careful case study gives the audience a way to test the explanation: what changed, when it changed, which pages were affected, what was compared and what other events may have influenced the outcome.

This is the kind of context the conference wants speakers to bring where they have permission to share it. A useful account can still be honest about incomplete data or confounding factors. The important difference is between showing an observation and claiming a cause. A presenter who explains the boundary of the evidence gives an audience something safer to apply than an unexplained “this worked for us.”

• •The question or business problem that prompted the work.
• •The site, market, audience and relevant starting conditions.
• •The intervention, timeline, measurement source and comparison.
• •The result, plausible alternative explanations and what remains unknown.
• •The next test or decision the evidence supports.

Section 03 / Evidence first

Because charts are only useful when their labels are clear

A chart can be persuasive before it is informative. Attendees should be able to ask whether a number is a Search Console observation, an analytics event, a third-party estimate or an internal business metric. Those measures answer different questions. A vendor’s estimated organic traffic is not the same thing as a property’s observed search clicks, and neither automatically equals qualified leads or revenue.

Google Search Console’s Performance report exposes measures such as clicks, impressions, click-through rate and average position, with ways to examine results by queries, pages, countries, devices and search appearance. Each measure has its own definition and limits. Average position is an aggregate, not a promise that every searcher saw a page in one fixed rank. A sound presentation names its dimensions and comparison window before interpreting movement.

This matters when teams compare periods. Seasonality, changes in tracking, site releases, brand campaigns, algorithm updates, demand shifts and competitor activity may coincide with an SEO intervention. The conference aims to make space for chart-reading habits that reduce overconfidence and help teams decide what additional evidence they need.

Section 04 / Evidence first

Because search fundamentals still need judgement

Technical SEO can determine whether search engines can reach and understand important pages. Content work can clarify who a page serves, what it answers and whether it adds information beyond existing results. Internal links can communicate relationships and help people move through a site. Local and multi-location work must balance repeatable systems with details that are genuinely relevant to each place. These are not interchangeable checklists; the right order depends on the site and its constraints.

Google’s people-first content guidance invites creators to consider who made a page, how it was produced and why it exists. That framing helps teams examine more than keywords: authorship, expertise, usefulness, maintenance, page experience and whether the material was created to help a reader or simply to capture a query. The conference intends to make these questions part of practical search planning rather than abstract slogans.

A technical fix is not valuable just because it is technical. A content programme is not effective just because it publishes frequently. The useful conversation connects each action to a diagnosed need, an owner, a measurement plan and a review date.

Section 05 / Evidence first

Because policy risk should be discussed in plain language

Search communities use labels such as black-hat, grey-hat and white-hat to talk about tactics and intent. Those labels do not replace an examination of what a team actually does. Google publishes Search spam policies covering practices that can lead to lower visibility or exclusion. A responsible SEO conversation should be able to identify a tactic, compare it with current guidance, explain its commercial appeal and acknowledge potential consequences. The About page explains how the founders intend to discuss these approaches without presenting risk as a recommendation.

Grey-hat is not an official safe harbour. A method described as “grey” by a vendor or forum can still conflict with a published policy, and interpretations can change. White-hat work is intended to align with guidance and create value, but it is not risk-free from competition or ranking volatility. Black-hat tactics may be discussed as part of understanding search history and risk, not promoted as a guaranteed shortcut.

The reason to attend is not to get a permission slip for every disputed tactic. It is to learn how to make a deliberate choice, document the reasoning, assess the downside and decide whether a potential gain is worth the exposure for a particular business.

Section 06 / Evidence first

Because search visibility is changing—and measurement has to keep up

Search results now include more ways for people to discover information, including generative AI experiences. Google announced dedicated Search Generative AI performance reports in Search Console in June 2026, covering visibility in features such as AI Overviews and AI Mode as well as generative AI in Discover. That development is a reason to ask better measurement questions, not a reason to assume that a new acronym or optimization service guarantees inclusion.

Google’s June 2026 announcement describes dedicated reporting for generative AI visibility. Teams should separate what a platform reports from what they infer. Visibility in an AI feature may not correspond to a click, and a change in impressions should not be described as a business result without an appropriate downstream measure. The definitions, availability and reporting surfaces can evolve, so practitioners should consult current primary documentation before making decisions.

The intended conversation is practical: which pages are discovered, what the available reports say, what they do not say, which audiences matter and how a team can keep serving people when search interfaces change. Attendees should leave better equipped to adapt their measurement plan rather than chase every new label.

Section 07 / Evidence first

Because search work belongs to more than one role

Search performance is rarely owned by one person from diagnosis through outcome. It depends on decisions made across business leadership, marketing, content, engineering, analytics, agencies and sometimes legal or compliance teams. A conference that brings those people into the same room can help them translate priorities and explain trade-offs instead of passing a list of disconnected tickets.

The event is being designed for several kinds of attendees:

Section 08 / Evidence first

Because a learning event should lead to a next step

Useful conference notes are not just a list of tactics. They help an attendee decide what to inspect on Monday. That might mean checking whether a high-value page can be crawled, asking a vendor to define a reporting metric, annotating an important site change, revisiting a content brief or declining an experiment whose risk the business has not accepted.

A practical next-step plan can be small: write down one business question, capture the current baseline, identify the change that would address it, choose a measure and set a review date. If the result moves, record what else happened. If the result does not move, document what the team learned and what it will do differently. This does not eliminate uncertainty; it makes the work easier to explain and improve.

The conference intends to encourage that kind of disciplined follow-through. It is not promising a universal workbook, particular workshop format or guaranteed deliverable before the agenda is confirmed. The goal is for the knowledge shared to remain useful when an attendee returns to their own site, team and constraints.

Section 09 / Evidence first

What attending can—and cannot—do

Attending can expose you to approaches, reasoning, questions and professional perspectives you may not encounter in your own team. It can help you compare a recommendation with current primary guidance and decide which ideas deserve a controlled test. It can create a chance to ask how a practitioner defined success or handled a result that did not fit the story.

It cannot guarantee a better ranking, a specific amount of organic traffic, a client contract, a promotion or a return on a ticket. Those outcomes depend on the attendee’s context and many factors beyond an event. The date, host city, venue, agenda, speakers and ticket details are not yet announced; the priority list is the place to request confirmed updates.

Before committing, review the confirmed schedule, location, access information and price when they are published. Choose the event based on the programme and practical fit—not on a claim that attendance alone will change a site’s performance.

Good questions, clear answers

Frequently asked questions.

Primary sources

Read the source, not just the summary.