The New Wealthy Affiliate Looks Promising—Part 2 of 5

Will Ace Improve What We Already Have Before Creating More?

In Part 1 of this series, I looked at how Ace might learn about the businesses we have already built.

Kyle has already told us that existing members will not have to start over. Ace is supposed to study what we have already created and help us refine it.

That brings me to the next question.

Once Ace understands the business, what should it help us do first?

My concern is that the easiest answer may be to create more content.

Another article.

Another social media post.

Another email.

Another channel.

And sometimes that may be exactly what the business needs.

But a lot of us already have years of content sitting on our websites.

Some of it may still be doing exactly what we created it to do. Some of it may need updating. Some articles may repeat each other or even compete with each other. Others may contain outdated information, weak links, unfinished ideas, or no clear place for the visitor to go next.

So before Ace starts telling us what else we need to create, I think it should help us take a serious look at what we already have.

The Original Preview

This series grew out of Kyle’s Friday, July 24, 2026, Beer With Kyle presentation about agentic AI and the rebuilt Wealthy Affiliate.

Beer with Kyle Fridays: Agentic AI and a First Look at the New Wealthy Affiliate

The idea of connected AI workflows is exciting.

But helping us produce more material faster is not enough by itself.

More content does not automatically mean a better website, and it definitely does not automatically mean a better business.

Fleeky made an infographic after reading Part 1, and one of the ideas she pulled out was that our websites are not the whole business.

They are only part of it.

The website sits inside a larger business ecosystem that also includes our goals, plans, history, visitors, content, email, social media, products, and where we hope to go next.

Some members may already think of their businesses that way. Others may still see the website as the business itself.

If Ace can help members see how all of those parts connect, that may be one of the most useful things it does.

But analyzing a website is not the same thing as understanding why every article is there, what still matters, what no longer fits, or what the business really needs next.

Sometimes the next best article may not be a new article at all.

Reviewing What We Already Have

If Ace is going to help us improve our businesses, one of the first things I hope it can do is take a good look at the content we already have.

Not just count the articles.

Not just look at traffic numbers.

I mean actually review what is on the website and help us understand how well it all works together.

It could look for articles that cover the same subject more than once. It might find content that is outdated, unfinished, or no longer correct. It could point out contradictions between older and newer articles, or show us when two posts may be competing instead of helping each other.

I would also like it to find weak internal links, unfinished series, missing follow-up articles, and questions we raised but never answered.

These things can build up over time, especially on websites that have been around for years.

Sometimes we know they are there. Sometimes we forget about them. And sometimes we do not know there is a problem until a visitor becomes confused or an older article starts working against the direction the business is taking now.

I also hope Ace can suggest more than writing another article.

Maybe an older post needs updating. Two articles may need to be combined. Several posts might work better as a clearer series. An article may need to be expanded because it never completely answered the question it raised.

An old page might need to be redirected, archived, or removed. Or the content may still be useful while the links and pathways around it need work.

The important thing is that Ace should not treat every problem as a reason to create something new.

Sometimes the best answer may be to strengthen what is already there.

That could save members time, keep us from repeating work, and help us get more value from content we may have spent months or years creating.

It could also show us where our websites have drifted away from the businesses we are trying to build now.

But even if Ace finds those problems, another question remains.

Finding a pattern is not the same thing as understanding what that pattern means.

I hope Ace will explain its findings in plain language for those of us who may not be experts in analytics, SEO, internal linking, or business strategy.

It should not just announce that two articles are competing, visitors are leaving a page, or one part of the website is not performing well.

We need to know why that may be happening, what the possible causes are, what choices we have, and what may happen if we choose one direction over another.

Ace may be able to show us what is happening and help us understand it.

But the final judgment should still belong to the person who knows the business.

Analysis Is Not the Same as Judgment

Becca recently wrote a blog called Agentic AI Strategy 2 about agentic AI and some of the things Matt Wolfe teaches about using it responsibly.

One of the points she brought up was that AI can be very useful for research, organizing information, finding patterns, and pulling important details out of a large amount of material.

That sounds like exactly the kind of work Ace may be able to help us with.

It could probably go through dozens, or even hundreds, of articles much faster than most of us could. It may find repeated subjects, broken links, missing follow-up content, older information we forgot was still there, or places where visitors are getting lost.

That could be extremely useful.

But Becca also brought up another problem.

AI may be able to analyze the material without understanding all of the history and context behind it.

An article that looks weak according to the numbers may still serve an important purpose.

It may answer a question that only a small part of the audience asks. It may be part of a series we have not finished. It may help build trust even if it does not lead directly to a sale.

It might support another article, product, project, or plan that Ace does not know about yet.

Or maybe it is there because we learned something important while writing it, even if the article never became one of the website’s top performers.

Ace may not know any of that unless we tell it.

Becca described this kind of problem as context blindness. AI may be able to work with the information in front of it without knowing the history, values, or reasons behind the decisions that created it.

The same problem could arise when Ace finds an older article that no longer seems to fit the website.

Maybe the article was an experiment. Maybe we changed our minds. Perhaps the business changed direction. Or the article may still matter for a reason that cannot be seen in the traffic numbers.

So I would not want Ace to simply hand us a list of articles to update, combine, archive, redirect, or delete.

It should explain what it found, why it thinks there may be a problem, and what information it may still be missing.

Then it should ask us questions.

Why was this article created? Does it still serve a purpose? Is it part of something larger? Does it still represent the direction of the business? Would changing or removing it affect another article, project, product, or plan?

Those questions could help Ace understand the business better.

They could also help us understand our own websites better.

That may be especially useful for members who know their subjects and audiences well but struggle with analytics, SEO, organization, or deciding what to do next.

I want Ace to help us understand the choices. It should explain what it sees, what it may not know, and what could happen if we choose one direction over another.

But it should not quietly make the choice for us.

Analysis may help us make a better decision, but it should not replace the judgment of the person who knows the business and why the content exists.

Understanding the Visitor’s Journey

Looking at the content itself is only part of what Ace should be able to do.

I also hope it can help us understand what visitors are actually doing once they get to the website.

Where are they coming in? What were they probably looking for? Does the page give them what they came for? And after they finish reading, is there a clear place for them to go next?

Those questions may sound simple, but they are not always easy to answer.

A visitor may land on one article, read part of it, click another link, move to a different part of the website, and then leave.

Or they may find exactly what they needed and still leave because there was no clear next step.

That does not always mean the article failed.

But it does mean we need to understand what happened.

I would like Ace to show us where visitors enter the website, where they go next, where they stop, and where they leave.

It could point out dead ends, weak internal links, confusing navigation, or places where the next step is not clear.

It might notice that an article brings up another question but does not give the visitor a way to find the answer. Or it may find that several useful articles already exist but are not connected well enough for visitors to discover them.

That could be one of the most useful things Ace does.

A lot of us may already know that our websites need better internal linking or clearer pathways.

The hard part is knowing where to start.

Ace could help us map that out.

It might show us that one article should lead to another, or that several posts should be connected into a series.

It could also point out where a visitor reaches the end of a page and has no real reason to stay on the website.

Another useful question is whether the page actually matches what brought the visitor there in the first place.

If someone searches for an answer to a specific question, lands on one of our pages, and finds something only partly related, the problem may not be the writing itself.

The page may simply fail to meet the expectation created by the search result, title, or link.

I hope Ace can help us see that difference.

But once again, it needs to explain what it finds.

Knowing that visitors are leaving a page is not enough. We need help understanding whether they left because they found the answer, because the page did not answer the question, because it was hard to follow, because the next step was unclear, because the links were weak, because the page loaded poorly, or because we asked them to do too much too soon.

Those are very different problems.

They should not all lead to the same recommendation.

Traffic numbers can tell us that someone arrived.

They do not always tell us whether we helped them.

The goal should not only be to bring people to the website, but to help them find what they came for and understand where to go next.

Trust and Monetization

Most of us are building websites because we eventually want them to make money.

That might be through affiliate links, advertising, an email list, products, services, books, or something else we plan to offer later.

There is nothing wrong with that. Making money is part of building a business.

But I do not think every page should be judged by how many sales it makes.

Some pages may be there to answer a question. Others may introduce a subject, explain something complicated, help visitors compare choices, or build enough trust that they come back later.

A page may not make much money directly and still be important to the business.

That is one of the things I hope Ace will understand.

For example, will it notice when we are trying to sell something too early?

Will it recognize when an affiliate offer interrupts what the visitor came to the page to learn?

What about when the same product is recommended so often that the website starts feeling more like a sales pitch than a source of help?

The same question applies to email lists.

There is nothing wrong with asking visitors to join one. But have we given them enough value first? Have we given them a reason to believe that hearing from us again will be worth their time?

Ace may be able to look at clicks, sales, sign-ups, and other numbers. I hope it can also help us understand what those numbers may not be showing us.

A page could be making sales now while slowly damaging the visitor’s trust.

Another page could make very little money by itself but help someone understand the subject, trust the writer, and return to the website later.

Both pages may be doing important work, just in different ways.

This goes back to the business ecosystem I mentioned earlier.

Every page does not have to do the same job.

I would like Ace to help us understand what job each page is supposed to do, whether it is doing that job, and whether our attempts to make money are helping or hurting the larger business.

It should also show us when two of our goals may be working against each other.

A stronger sales push might improve conversions for a while. But it might also make the website feel less helpful and more promotional.

That does not automatically make it the wrong choice.

It means we need to understand what we may gain, what we may lose, and whether that tradeoff fits the business we are trying to build.

Ace can help us see that.

But we should still make the decision.

Making money matters, but it should not cost us the visitor’s trust or get in the way of why they came to the website.

Learning From What Happens Next

Even after Ace helps us find a problem and decide what to change, the work should not stop there.

We still need to know whether the change actually helped.

That may sound obvious, but I think this is another place where a lot of us could use some help.

Suppose Ace suggests updating an older article.

We make the changes.

Traffic goes up.

Does that mean the update worked?

Maybe.

But maybe the article started ranking for a different search term. Perhaps more people are arriving but leaving faster. Or traffic may have increased while sales, sign-ups, or clicks dropped.

The opposite could happen too.

Traffic might go down, but the visitors who do arrive may be finding a better answer, staying longer, joining the email list, or buying something that actually fits their needs.

So I would not want Ace to look at one number and declare the change a success or failure.

I would want it to help us understand what happened afterward.

What changed? What stayed the same? Did visitors move through the website differently? Did the article begin leading people to another useful page? Did more visitors read the article all the way through?

Did they click the affiliate link because it fit naturally, or because we made it harder to avoid? Did the change improve the page itself while causing a problem somewhere else?

These questions could help turn Ace into more than a tool that gives advice once and then moves on.

It could become part of a feedback loop.

Ace studies what we already have. It helps us understand a possible problem. We decide what to do. Then Ace watches the results and helps us make sense of them.

That does not mean it should keep changing things on its own.

It means it should help us learn from what happened.

Maybe the update worked exactly as hoped. Maybe it partly worked. Perhaps it solved one problem and created another.

Or we may discover that the original page was doing something useful that the numbers did not make obvious.

I also think Ace should remember these results.

If we learn that our audience responds better to one kind of explanation, one type of call to action, or one way of organizing a series, that should become part of what Ace knows about our business.

But it should not turn one result into a permanent rule.

What works on one page may not work on another. What works now may not work six months from now. And what works for one audience may be completely wrong for another.

Ace should help us recognize patterns without pretending every pattern is a law.

That could be especially useful for members who know they should study their analytics but are not always sure what the numbers are telling them.

I hope Ace can explain the results in plain language, show us several possible reasons for what happened, and help us decide what to test next.

The goal should not be to make one change and assume the job is finished.

The goal should be to keep learning what helps the visitor and what helps the business.

Ace should not only help us make changes. It should help us understand what those changes actually did.

What I Hope Ace Helps Us Do

The rebuilt Wealthy Affiliate may give us faster ways to create content.

That could be useful.

But I hope Ace does more than help us produce more articles, emails, social media posts, and other material.

I hope it helps us understand what we have already built.

It may show us where content is outdated, repeated, disconnected, unfinished, or no longer fits the direction of the business.

It could help us see where visitors are getting lost, where trust is being weakened, and where monetization is being pushed too early.

Then, after we make a change, it should help us understand what actually happened.

Did the change help the visitor? Did it help the business? Did it solve one problem while creating another? And did Ace learn anything useful about our audience, our content, or the way our particular business works?

That is the kind of help I would find valuable.

Not an AI that keeps telling us to create more.

I am more interested in an AI that helps us understand what we have, what may need attention, what choices are available, and what happened after we made a decision.

But even then, Ace will not know everything.

It may see patterns we missed, but it may not understand the history behind every article, decision, experiment, or change in direction.

That is why the final judgment still needs to belong to us.

Ace can help us see more clearly. It can help us ask better questions. It may even help us notice problems we did not know were there.

But it should not quietly decide what our businesses are supposed to become.

In Part 3, I want to look more closely at that human side of the system.

How much control should Ace have? What should always require our approval? And what happens when an AI can send, spend, publish, delete, or make other decisions that affect the business?

Those questions may matter even more than how much content Ace can create.

This Five-Part Series

Part 1: The New Wealthy Affiliate Looks Promising—But Will It Understand the Business We Already Built?

Part 2: The New Wealthy Affiliate Looks Promising—Will Ace Improve What We Already Have Before Creating More?

You are here.

Next—Part 3: Human judgment, business control, and the decisions Ace should never make without us.

Sources and Related Blogs

Kyle’s original presentation:

Beer with Kyle Fridays: Agentic AI and a First Look at the New Wealthy Affiliate

Becca’s discussion of agentic AI, context blindness, and ideas she learned from Matt Wolfe:

Agentic AI Strategy 2

A Note About AI Assistance

Yes, I used ChatGPT to help me organize, draft, and polish this blog. But my hands were in every part of it.

The ideas, questions, concerns, and final decisions are mine. I reviewed every section, challenged wording that did not sound like me, requested changes, and decided what stayed in the blog.

I also added my own plans, experiences, opinions, concerns, and examples wherever they helped explain what I was trying to say.

AI helped me shape and organize the work. It did not replace my judgment, my experiences, or my voice.

JD