{"id":13306,"date":"2026-11-07T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-07T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voctos.net\/?p=13306"},"modified":"2026-11-05T11:01:44","modified_gmt":"2026-11-05T09:01:44","slug":"ai-overviews-clicks-arabic-health-queries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voctos.net\/ar\/ai-overviews-clicks-arabic-health-queries\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0647\u0644 \u062a\u0642\u0644\u0651\u0635 \u0644\u0645\u062d\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u0630\u0643\u0627\u0621 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0635\u0637\u0646\u0627\u0639\u064a \u0645\u0646 \u062c\u0648\u062c\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0642\u0631\u0627\u062a \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0639\u0645\u0644\u064a\u0627\u062a \u0627\u0644\u0628\u062d\u062b \u0627\u0644\u0635\u062d\u064a\u0629 \u0628\u0627\u0644\u0639\u0631\u0628\u064a\u0629\u061f \u0645\u0627 \u062a\u064f\u0638\u0647\u0631\u0647 Search Console \u0641\u064a \u0645\u0648\u0642\u0639\u064a\u0646"},"content":{"rendered":"

On two Arabic health sites, the pages Google cited most did not lose clicks. Between 17 July and 16 October 2026, 22.5% of a large Arabic medical lab blog’s Google impressions came with a link inside an AI Overview or AI Mode answer. At the same positions, its most-cited third of pages earned 127.6 clicks for every 100 expected. The least-cited third earned 76.9.<\/p>\n

A mid-size Gulf gastroenterology clinic pointed the same way, with wider error margins. Search Console only logs AI impressions for pages linked inside the answer, so the comparison is between pages cited often and pages cited rarely. That is a different test from the studies abroad, and it does not prove that AI answers add clicks.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
22.5%<\/div>\n
of a large Arabic lab blog's Google impressions came with a link in an AI Overview or AI Mode answer (clinic: 24.9%)<\/div>\n
Google Search Console, 17 Jul to 16 Oct 2026<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
127.6<\/div>\n
clicks per 100 expected for their positions on the lab blog's most-cited third of pages (least-cited third: 76.9)<\/div>\n
VOCTOS analysis of 903 pages<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2.39\u00d7<\/div>\n
CTR of the most-cited vs least-cited lab pages at positions 4 to 6: 1.51% vs 0.63%<\/div>\n
90% interval 2.02 to 2.82<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
58%<\/div>\n
lower position-1 CTR on keywords with an AI Overview vs forecast, desktop, December 2025<\/div>\n
Ahrefs, 300,000 keywords<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What did we measure, and on which two sites?<\/h2>\n

We joined two Search Console reports, page by page, for two Arabic health properties over the same 92 days, 17 July to 16 October 2026. The Generative AI report gave each page’s AI-feature impressions. The Performance report gave its clicks, web impressions and average position. Dividing the first by the second gives each page’s AI share.<\/p>\n

The two sites differ in scale. The first is a large Arabic medical lab blog run by a Saudi lab group and read from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to the Maghreb. It logged 41 million AI-feature impressions in three months, 22.5% of its web impressions. The second is a mid-size Gulf gastroenterology clinic, at 24.9%. Both clients approved our aggregated, anonymised use of their data.<\/p>\n

AI share counts citations, not AI answers. Google logs an AI impression only when a page’s link appears inside the answer. A page can sit under an AI Overview all day and log nothing if the answer links someone else.<\/p>\n

Google’s help page for the Generative AI report<\/a> says the report draws on the Web search type of the main Performance report. AI impressions are part of your web impressions, so never add the two. We covered the report itself in our first reading of Search Console’s AI report on Arabic sites<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Setting<\/th>\nLab blog<\/th>\nClinic<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Window<\/td>\n17 Jul to 16 Oct 2026 (92 days), read 18 Oct 2026<\/td>\nSame<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Search type<\/td>\nWeb, in both reports<\/td>\nSame<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pages analysed<\/td>\n903 pages present in both 1,000-row exports (880 are Arabic articles)<\/td>\n103 pages with at least 300 web impressions (71 are Arabic articles)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AI-share thirds<\/td>\nCut-offs at 19.3% and 27.5%<\/td>\nCut-offs at 16.2% and 26.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Position bands compared<\/td>\n4 to 6 (491 pages) and 7 to 10 (411 pages); one page at 1 to 3<\/td>\n7 to 10 (66 pages); other bands too thin<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Click index<\/td>\nClicks \u00f7 (impressions \u00d7 the site’s average CTR for that position band) \u00d7 100<\/td>\nSame<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Uncertainty<\/td>\n90% bootstrap interval, 1,000 resamples of pages<\/td>\nSame<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Before pulling the data, we wrote down what would count as a click penalty. It needed a most-cited to least-cited CTR ratio below 0.90, with its 90% interval excluding 1, in at least two position bands on both sites. Neither site met it, and both pointed the other way.<\/p>\n

Do the pages Google cites most earn fewer clicks?<\/h2>\n

On both Arabic health sites, the pages Google cited most earned more clicks for their positions than the pages it cited least. On the lab blog, the most-cited third of 903 pages earned 127.6 clicks per 100 expected, against 76.9 for the least-cited third. On the clinic’s 103 pages, the gap was smaller: 104.7 against 81.6.<\/p>\n

We treat the click index as the fairest single number here, because it compares each page with pages at the same average position on the same site. An index of 100 means a group earned exactly the CTR typical for its positions. The lab’s most-cited pages beat that by about 28%, its middle third sat at 93.0, and its least-cited pages fell about 23% short.<\/p>\n

On the clinic, the middle third (100.6) and the most-cited third (104.7) sat close together, and the least-cited third did the falling. Its Arabic articles show the split more sharply: 70.6 for the least-cited third against 105.1 for the most-cited, with the middle at 105.2. With 71 article pages, a single strong page can move a third by several points.<\/p>\n

Clicks per 100 expected for their positions, by how often Google cited the page<\/title>Clicks per 100 expected for their positions, by how often Google cited the page<\/text>Derived index: 100 = the average CTR for the same position band on the same site. Thirds are set by AI share, the share<\/text>of a page's impressions that came with its link inside an AI Overview or AI Mode answer.<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>Middle third<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>Large Arabic medical lab blog, 903 pages<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>76.9<\/text>Middle third<\/text>93.0<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>127.6<\/text>Gulf gastroenterology clinic, 103 pages<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>81.6<\/text>Middle third<\/text>100.6<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>104.7<\/text>Clinic, Arabic articles only, 71 pages<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>70.6<\/text>Middle third<\/text>105.2<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>105.1<\/text>Source: Google Search Console, Performance and Generative AI reports, Web search, 17 Jul to 16 Oct 2026, read by VOCTOS<\/text>on 18 Oct 2026. Sites anonymised.<\/text><\/svg><\/figure>\n

At the same position, the most-cited pages still earned more<\/h2>\n

The lab blog’s most-cited pages kept their click advantage at similar average positions. At positions 4 to 6, they turned 1.51% of impressions into clicks, against 0.63% for the least-cited pages, a ratio of 2.39 (90% interval 2.02 to 2.82). At positions 7 to 10 the ratio was 1.47 (1.17 to 1.82).<\/p>\n

In clicks per 10,000 impressions, that is 151 compared with 63 at positions 4 to 6, and 72 compared with 49 at positions 7 to 10. The middle third landed in between both times, at 97 and 69. The bars rest on 57, 165 and 269 pages in the first band and 244, 136 and 31 in the second, and neither interval comes near 1.<\/p>\n

Lab blog CTR by AI-share third, at the same average position<\/title>Lab blog CTR by AI-share third, at the same average position<\/text>Most-cited vs least-cited CTR ratio: 2.39 at positions 4 to 6 (90% interval 2.02 to 2.82), 1.47 at 7 to 10 (1.17 to<\/text>1.82). Pages per bar: 57, 165, 269 and 244, 136, 31. CTR = summed clicks divided by summed impressions.<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>Middle third<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>Average position 4 to 6 (491 pages)<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>0.63%<\/text>Middle third<\/text>0.97%<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>1.51%<\/text>Average position 7 to 10 (411 pages)<\/text>Least-cited third<\/text>0.49%<\/text>Middle third<\/text>0.69%<\/text>Most-cited third<\/text>0.72%<\/text>Source: Google Search Console, large Arabic medical lab blog, Performance and Generative AI reports, 17 Jul to 16 Oct<\/text>2026, read by VOCTOS on 18 Oct 2026.<\/text>Intervals: 90% bootstrap, 1,000 resamples of pages.<\/text><\/svg><\/figure>\n

Across all 903 pages, the rank correlation between AI share and CTR was 0.68 (Spearman). By the usual rule of thumb, that counts as strong. The 880 Arabic article pages alone gave the same ratios. The more often Google linked a lab page in AI answers, the larger the share of its impressions that turned into clicks.<\/p>\n

The clinic is thinner. Only one band held enough pages: at positions 7 to 10, its most-cited pages reached 0.60% CTR against 0.43%, a ratio of 1.38 with an interval from 0.48 to 2.51. That interval crosses 1, so we read the clinic’s all-pages result as a direction only. Its Arabic articles in the same band gave 1.72 (1.07 to 3.06).<\/p>\n

Did CTR fall as AI exposure grew?<\/h2>\n

In our weekly data, CTR rose alongside AI share on both sites from late July to late September 2026. The lab blog’s AI share went from 19.9% in the week of 9 August to 26.0% by mid-September as its CTR climbed from 0.81% to 1.02%. In October both eased, to 24.3% and 0.88%.<\/p>\n

Weekly share of Google impressions that came with an AI link<\/title>Weekly share of Google impressions that came with an AI link<\/text>Weeks run Sunday to Saturday and are labelled by their first day. The week of 11 October has six days (to 16 October);<\/text>the two days before 19 July are left out. Both sites ended at 24.3% in the week of 11 October.<\/text>Large Arabic medical lab blog<\/text>Gulf gastroenterology clinic<\/text>15%<\/text>20%<\/text>25%<\/text>30%<\/text>35%<\/text>19 Jul<\/text>26 Jul<\/text>2 Aug<\/text>9 Aug<\/text>16 Aug<\/text>23 Aug<\/text>30 Aug<\/text>6 Sep<\/text>13 Sep<\/text>20 Sep<\/text>27 Sep<\/text>4 Oct<\/text>11 Oct<\/text>24.3%<\/text>24.3%<\/text>Source: Google Search Console, Performance and Generative AI reports, Web search, 17 Jul to 16 Oct 2026, read by VOCTOS<\/text>on 18 Oct 2026. Sites anonymised.<\/text><\/svg><\/figure>\n

The clinic moved further. Its AI share went from 18.4% in the week of 26 July to 33.8% in the week of 27 September, while its CTR rose from 0.55% to 0.82%. Average position improved on both sites over those weeks, from 6.64 to 6.13 on the lab blog and from 8.25 to 6.47 on the clinic.<\/p>\n

Weekly organic CTR on the same two sites<\/title>Weekly organic CTR on the same two sites<\/text>Weeks run Sunday to Saturday and are labelled by their first day. The week of 11 October has six days (to 16 October);<\/text>the two days before 19 July are left out.<\/text>Large Arabic medical lab blog<\/text>Gulf gastroenterology clinic<\/text>0.4%<\/text>0.6%<\/text>0.8%<\/text>1.0%<\/text>1.2%<\/text>19 Jul<\/text>26 Jul<\/text>2 Aug<\/text>9 Aug<\/text>16 Aug<\/text>23 Aug<\/text>30 Aug<\/text>6 Sep<\/text>13 Sep<\/text>20 Sep<\/text>27 Sep<\/text>4 Oct<\/text>11 Oct<\/text>0.88%<\/text>0.72%<\/text>Source: Google Search Console, Performance report, Web search, read by VOCTOS on 18 Oct 2026. Sites anonymised.<\/text><\/svg><\/figure>\n

Two things overlap this rise. Better positions lift CTR on their own, and part of the position gain can come from Google’s rule that links inside an AI Overview take the Overview’s position. The September 2026 spam update also ran from 24 September to 8 October, covered in our check of that update on Arabic sites<\/a>. We cannot separate these effects in this data. Thirteen weekly points also describe one window, too short to call a trend.<\/p>\n

Your Search Console already holds both reports.<\/strong> Show me which of my pages earn clicks when Google answers first<\/a><\/p>\n

Global studies vs what we measured<\/h2>\n

The best-known studies outside the Arab world all find lower CTR when an AI Overview appears. Pew counted a result click on 8% of US visits with an AI summary against 15% without, and Ahrefs measured 58% lower position-1 CTR. None of them measures what Search Console’s AI report allows: pages cited often against pages cited rarely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Study<\/th>\nMethod and sample<\/th>\nFinding<\/th>\nWhat it measures<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Ahrefs, global<\/a> (Feb 2026)<\/td>\n300,000 keywords; desktop CTR from aggregated Search Console data, December 2023 vs December 2025<\/td>\nPosition-1 CTR 58% below forecast; 19.4% below at position 10<\/td>\nKeywords with an AI Overview against a forecast without one<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ahrefs, France (in French)<\/a> (Aug 2026)<\/td>\n963 top domains; 28 days before vs 9 days after the 22 July 2026 launch; exposed vs control group<\/td>\nCTR down 23.1% where AI Overviews hit over 20% of queries (control up 2.3%); health: 22.2% AI Overview rate, CTR down 20.4%<\/td>\nDomain-level change at launch<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pew Research Center<\/a> (Jul 2025)<\/td>\nBrowsing logs of 900 US adults, 68,879 Google searches, March 2025<\/td>\nResult link clicked on 8% of visits with an AI summary vs 15% without; 1% clicked a link inside the summary<\/td>\nUser behaviour per search<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A US search agency, 2026 update (Apr 2026)<\/td>\n53 brands, 5.47 million queries; informational queries in 2025 by AI Overview status<\/td>\nOrganic CTR 2.07% when the brand was cited, 0.94% when not cited (about 1.61% without one large account), 3.35% with no AI Overview<\/td>\nCited vs not cited vs no AI Overview<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Google<\/a> (2025)<\/td>\nNo figures published<\/td>\nClicks from results pages with AI Overviews are “higher quality” (Search Central); total organic clicks “relatively stable” year on year (Liz Reid, August 2025)<\/td>\nGoogle’s own claim<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VOCTOS, two Arabic health sites (Oct 2026)<\/td>\n903 and 103 pages; Performance and Generative AI reports joined by page, 17 July to 16 October 2026<\/td>\nMost-cited third: 127.6 and 104.7 clicks per 100 expected; least-cited third: 76.9 and 81.6<\/td>\nPages cited often vs cited rarely, at similar positions, all devices<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The studies agree on the direction and differ on the size, from 15.49% lower CTR in a second US agency’s study of 700,000 keywords to 58% at position one in Ahrefs’ data. None of them covers Arabic queries or an Arab market.<\/p>\n

The closest match to our design is the 2026 update from the US search agency. On informational queries in 2025, its brands earned 2.07% CTR when cited inside the AI Overview and 0.94% when the Overview appeared without them. Its authors give the same warning we do: higher-authority brands are also more likely to be cited.<\/p>\n

Both results can hold at once, because a page with a low AI share is not a page untouched by AI answers. Part of its impressions can come from searches where an answer appeared and linked someone else, the lowest-click case in every study above. Search Console can show you when your link sat inside an AI answer. It cannot show you when an AI answer appeared without you.<\/p>\n

\n

Search Console can show you when your link sat inside an AI answer. It cannot show you when an AI answer appeared without you.<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

The French data carries a warning for health publishers. Health queries in that panel triggered AI Overviews 22.2% of the time, the highest rate in the study, and health CTR was 20.4% lower in the nine days after launch than in the 28 days before.<\/p>\n

What this data cannot prove<\/h2>\n

Our data links being cited often with earning more clicks; it does not show that citations cause the clicks. It cannot say what any page would have earned with no AI answer at all, because neither site has a group of pages never shown in AI features. Four limits shape how far the result travels.<\/p>\n