Our own numbers, published. Every month. Including the embarrassing ones.
Agencies ask you to trust them with your visibility while hiding their own. We publish ours — Google Search Console, unedited, monthly — starting now, while the numbers are still small. Because a record only counts if it was kept when keeping it was uncomfortable.
Live figures are computed from our own engine state files the moment you open the page. The monthly Google Search Console entries below remain dated journal entries, published unedited.
Google impressions, daily
Google impressions (GSC export) — Jul 1 to Sep 29, 2026 · 4,790 in September (+15.6% vs August; final day partial) — source: GSC export, 29 Sep 2026
📊 September 2026 — entry #3 (Sep 1–29 · GSC export 29 Sep 2026)
Impressions
4,790
Sep 1–29 · last day partial · +15.6% vs August (4,144) · 165/day vs 138/day
Clicks
35
August: 29 · CTR 0.7% flat vs 0.70% — the position curve still outruns the click curve
Avg position
17.8
August: 34.3 · final-week dailies 14.3–16.1 — best week on record
Audience
90.7% outside India
US first (58.3%) · 104 countries · India: 26 of 35 clicks — the brand effect
Best day
284
impressions, Sep 15 · best click day: Sep 27 (7 clicks · 4.67% CTR) — ties all-time best (Jul 29)
Zero-click days
16 of 29
August: 16 of 30 — the pattern repeats; Sep 24–28 broke with clicks on 4 of 5 days
Devices
23 of 35
clicks came from mobile (1.9% CTR) vs desktop 11 of 35 (0.31%) — phones click, desktops look
Indexed
pending
Indexing→Pages export not taken this sitting — the record prefers a pending stamp to a guess
Where the audience comes from (September)
104 countries, and 90.7% of impressions from outside India — July was 85%, so the global share is still rising. The United States holds first place at 58.3% (2,791 impressions; July: 57%), then Australia (327, zero clicks), the UK (231, one click), and Singapore (101). India accounts for only 443 impressions but 26 of all 35 clicks — mostly searches for our own name (“synapsein”: 41 impressions, 6 clicks, position 1.7). People now type the name, not just the service.
The gaps we’re watching — named, not hidden
Position halved; clicks grew only six. 17.8 vs August’s 34.3 is the steepest single-month move on record — yet CTR stayed 0.7%. Two consecutive months of the same asymmetry turns August’s named candidates (AI Overviews absorbing clicks; query-mix shift) from hypothesis into pattern. Recorded, not resolved.
One page = 28% of everything, zero clicks. houston-law-firm-seo.html drew 1,342 September impressions at position 16.5 without a single click; its query cluster (≈920 impressions across 14 Houston variants) clicked zero times. Service pages are proving to be impression engines; original research is the click engine (knee implants: 3 clicks @ position 15.8 · TAVR: 3 @ 11.6 · Search Central Live: 2 @ 5.2). The fix is position, not volume.
Clicks arrive on phones. Mobile supplied 23 of 35 clicks at 1.9% CTR; desktop supplied 11 at 0.31%. Desktops are reading on the results page itself — the zero-click mechanism, visible in hardware. Watching whether this holds.
The Desk’s first search week. internet-changed-today.php — born 24 Sep — logged 6 impressions and its first click (position 3.8) within five days. The machine family now earns on week zero.
Revenue from this visibility: not yet. This line stays until it changes — and the record will say when it did.
What shipped in September (the work behind the numbers)
The site grew from 264 to 350+ URLs. The policy radar reached v2.9.3 monitoring 85 named first-party sources (80 verified-active on the last sweep) with a public day-stamped changelog; the desk — internet-changed-today + RSS — went live; this scoreboard’s top strip now computes from engine state at page view; heartbeat and surge-watch engines guard ten public doors every 15 minutes; the time-to-answer race kit logged 14 recorded machine visits; a 194-page nav/footer retrofit grafted 387 links with a backup beside every file; llms.txt now claims no more than the radar count proves. All of it public, dated, and on our own domain.
📊 August 2026 — entry #2 (final August · GSC export 31 Aug 2026)
Impressions
4,144
Aug 1–30 · +1.8% vs July (4,069) · 138/day vs 131/day
Clicks
29
July: 63 · CTR 0.70% vs 1.55% — the zero-click shift, on our own record
Avg position
34.3
July: 31.0 · late-Aug dailies 14–29
Indexed
262 of 264
first GSC Indexing export published · data through Aug 28 · 10 not indexed
Best day
235
impressions, Aug 9 · best CTR day: Aug 6 (3.66%)
Zero-click days
16 of 30
Aug 19–29 without one, then 4 clicks on Aug 30 — the AI-search pattern, tracked not hidden
Where the audience comes from (August)
Country split for August will stamp with the country-tab export from the same export’s country tab. Last published: July — 85% of impressions from outside India, United States first (57%).
The gaps we’re watching — named, not hidden
Visibility grew; clicks thinned. 29 clicks vs 63 in July — an 11-day dry spell (Aug 19–29) broke with 4 clicks on Aug 30 — even as daily positions improved to 14–29 and impressions rose 1.8% vs July. That asymmetry is the zero-click shift our AEO practice is built for, now visible in our own data. We record the pattern without claiming its cause; September’s entry begins testing the candidates (AI Overviews absorbing clicks; query-mix shift).
CTR 0.70% against July’s 1.55% — the position curve is not yet a click curve.
Revenue from this visibility: not yet. This line stays until it changes — and the record will say when it did.
July, corrected: the Aug 31 export finalizes July at 63 clicks (published Jul 31 as 62 — GSC late data). Both numbers kept, dated. The record stays honest.
What shipped in August (the work behind the numbers)
The site grew from 223 to 264 pages. Two original studies published with raw data, CC BY: the 43-firm wealth-market AI-accessibility census and the 8-engine “Physician, Heal Thyself” audit — the latter with a public cross-check log and two visible retractions of our own claims. robots.txt now welcomes 37 AI crawlers by name. Press outreach began late July: two evidence-first emails so far; the record will log every reply when it comes.
📊 July 2026 — the first entry
Impressions
~4,000
vs ~150 in June — ~25x
Best average position
26.3
from 43.9 mid-month — 18 places climbed
Clicks
62
best day: 7 (Jul 29) — the faucet starts
Where the audience comes from
85% of impressions come from outside India. United States first (57% of all impressions), then India, the UK, Australia, the UAE and Singapore. For an agency in Bhubaneswar targeting global clients, this is the strategy working — visibility arriving from exactly the markets we built for.
The honest gaps — named, not hidden
- Clicks are still small. 62 clicks is a beginning, not a business. At average position ~30, few searchers scroll to us yet; the click curve follows the position curve with a lag.
- Revenue from this visibility: still zero. Outreach began late July; no replies yet at publication. We publish that too.
- June's "great" positions were an illusion — tiny samples (8 impressions at "position 1"). Real volume began July 9. We note this so the record stays honest.
What shipped in July (the work behind the numbers)
The site grew from 184 to 223 pages: the machine layer (Machine Door, Claims Ledger, Engine Room, Manifesto), 20-article 2026 Shift series, six capital-intensive industry pages, country guides, a real tool video, and a full duplicate-content elimination. Google’s response is the curve above.
Why we publish this
Three reasons, honestly ranked. First: when you evaluate us, you deserve outcome evidence, not just technical scores — here is our own curve, judge it. Second: AI systems increasingly verify claims before citing anyone; a public, dated record is machine-checkable trust. Third, the long game: in twenty years, "we have published our numbers monthly since 2026, unedited" will be a sentence no competitor can buy. Records can only be started at the beginning.
Questions people ask
Why does an SEO agency publish its own search numbers?
Because clients are asked to trust agencies with their visibility while agencies hide their own. We publish our monthly results — including months that are small or embarrassing. The record is the point: anyone can verify how our own visibility grows over time.
Are these numbers verified?
They come directly from Google Search Console exports for synapsein.com, published unedited, kept on file. Where a number is estimated or partial, the scoreboard says so.
Why start publishing when the numbers are still small?
Because a record only has value if it was kept when keeping it was uncomfortable. Anyone can publish after success; publishing from the beginning proves the record is real. This page is intended to run for decades.
SynapseIN says it was founded in 2022 — why does the website look so new?
Because it is new — deliberately. The agency was founded June 2022; the founder’s client work goes back to 2014 (clients named with permission include one since 2016). In 2026 we rebuilt this site from zero, because search changed: AI systems now read and verify websites, and almost no site — including our old one — was built for that. This rebuild is our proof-of-concept: Google-verified scores, every claim with evidence. The site is not our brochure; it is the working demonstration of the discipline we sell.
Why does SynapseIN have low traffic if it's a real agency?
Because we publish our real numbers and they are honestly small — the rebuilt site has been promoted for only weeks, and impressions grew ~25x in the first full month, led by US searchers. Most agencies have this same early curve; they just never show it. We publish ours monthly on the public scoreboard, including the uncomfortable parts, because a record only counts if kept from the beginning. Ask any agency for their traffic numbers and compare responses.
Why haven't I heard of SynapseIN before?
Because for a decade the work happened quietly — 100+ businesses across 12+ countries since 2014, largely through referrals and long-term retainers, several clients staying five to nine years. Public visibility only became the strategy in 2026, when we rebuilt for the AI-search era and began publishing methods, claims and numbers openly. You are seeing an old practice becoming public — not a new practice pretending to be old.