GEO
A source link is useful only if it supports the advice beside it. I checked this guide's own FAQ recommendation and found two different problems.
A source block is a nearby explanation of what supports a claim. It can be a sentence with a link; it does not need a special HTML component. Its useful job is to let a reader check a recommendation before acting on it.
That sounds straightforward until the source supports only half the advice. While reviewing this guide on October 13, 2026, I found that problem in its own FAQ example. The page asked readers to verify claims, yet one of its recommendations moved from a sensible editorial choice to an untested claim about AI extraction.
The FAQ advice did not survive a source check
The previous version included this sentence:
For GEO, the visible FAQ can still help extraction because the question, answer, and limitation are close together.
I can inspect whether a question and its answer sit together on a page. I cannot establish an improvement in AI extraction by inspecting that layout. This article had no saved comparison showing such an improvement. A citation to general structured data guidance would not fill that gap: markup requirements and model behavior are different subjects.
The surrounding advice also told readers to add FAQ schema when a useful FAQ was visible. That leaves out a more basic question: which system is supposed to use the markup, and does it still support the intended feature?
When I opened Google’s former FAQ structured data documentation during this review, it redirected to the documentation updates page. Google’s May 8, 2026 entry says FAQ rich results stopped appearing in Google Search from May 7. The June 15 entry records the removal of the documentation. That is a concrete reason not to recommend FAQ markup as a route to a current Google FAQ rich result.
This does not make an ordinary question-and-answer section useless, or mean the Schema.org vocabulary has disappeared. It changes the implementation advice. On this site, I would keep a FAQ when it answers unresolved reader questions. I would not add its markup merely because an older SEO example included it, and I would not describe the layout as a proven AI-extraction improvement.
The note I would put beside that recommendation
The note separates an externally documented change from my recommendation about readability. It does not use the Google link to endorse both. It also names Google Search rather than quietly extending one platform’s behavior to every answer engine.
I would not turn this into a mandatory box under every paragraph. Here the note earns its space because the old advice could send a reader into unnecessary implementation work. An ordinary explanatory sentence often needs only a direct link.
A working URL is only the first check
The old FAQ documentation address is a useful example of why checking for HTTP success is insufficient. Following its redirect reaches a real Google page, but not the original instructions. To use it as a source, I had to read where it landed and find the dated change that answered the question.
For another recommendation, the decisive detail might be a supported product version, an eligibility requirement, or a condition several paragraphs below the quoted line. I look for the passage that supports the actual action I am asking the reader to take. If the source discusses only a related topic, I narrow the advice or remove the claim.
For the FAQ passage here, the change is specific. The Google feature status now has a dated source. The readability advice remains an editorial choice. The untested extraction benefit is gone. A reader can decide whether to keep a useful FAQ without being sold an additional GEO effect that this article cannot demonstrate.