Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is the work of helping AI search systems find, understand and refer to useful content. Examples include Google’s AI search features and ChatGPT search. Each platform has its own rules.
Key points
- Check access. Pages should be crawlable and indexable. For ChatGPT search, review OAI-SearchBot access; its search permission is separate from GPTBot’s training permission.
- Add useful proof. Original screenshots, tested examples and named sources give readers something they can verify.
- Explain things plainly. Define unfamiliar terms and keep important facts in visible text.
- Keep details current. Update product information, service scope and factual claims when they change.
- Measure real outcomes. Record actual citations, referral visits and enquiries. An audit score alone does not prove AI visibility.
A practical example
My MRL Bazaar case study documents clearer product guidance and store information on my own ecommerce site. That is a useful content example; the audit results do not prove that an AI system cited the site.
Separate access, evidence and outcomes
An AI visibility review is easier to assess when it has three parts. First, check whether the intended page can be reached and whether its published information is understandable. Second, examine the evidence behind its claims. Third, record what was actually observed in search or referral data. These questions are related, but their answers are different. A page returning successfully does not establish that an AI system cited it. A screenshot of one answer does not establish a lasting position. A useful review states the URL, data source, date and limits for each observation.
For example, consider a case study containing a before-and-after technical audit. The useful evidence is the original report, the pages covered and the tasks recorded. The narrative can explain why a link or page structure was changed and how that work was checked. Keep the campaign score beside its scope and settings. Do not convert that score into a statement about AI citations, customer enquiries or sales when those outcomes were not measured. This distinction makes the case study more helpful to a reader deciding whether the documented work resembles their own problem.
Explain the subject using approved information
A service page should explain who the service suits, what work may be included and what information the owner must provide. A product guide should distinguish verified specifications from opinion and state the limits of any comparison. A project account should identify whether it is a real engagement, an own-website project or a labelled demonstration. These details give the reader context for the claims. They also reduce the chance that a short excerpt is misunderstood. There is no need to invent first-hand testing, client approval or performance results to make the page appear more convincing.
Use headings and ordinary paragraphs to organise the explanation. Include a comparison or sequence of steps when it answers a real reader question, and keep important limitations close to the relevant claim. Original screenshots can support a work record, with useful captions and appropriate alternative text. Cite a primary source when a technical rule or platform requirement is important to the answer. Update facts when they change, while retaining the dates of historical reports. Avoid publishing many near-identical pages for small query variations when a single complete explanation serves the same audience.
Keep a practical visibility record
Choose a small set of relevant pages and questions for a review. For each observation, record the platform, query, date, cited URL and what the answer actually says. A page may be mentioned without a clickable citation, or it may appear as a navigational reference; describe what you saw rather than assigning a broader result. Where referral analytics are available, examine visits and useful actions separately from these manual observations. Google’s current AI search guidance also points owners to its Generative AI performance report in Search Console. Use available platform data with its stated scope.
Compare observations over a sensible reporting period and note important website changes. Keep content revisions, access corrections and business outcomes in separate parts of the record. If a platform does not provide the data needed for a conclusion, state that limit. A useful next task could be clarifying an ambiguous service explanation, repairing an internal link or adding approved evidence to a project account. Judge the task by what it changes for a visitor and what can be verified afterwards. This keeps GEO work connected to a working website and reliable information instead of unsupported promises about AI recommendations.
What to expect
Google says regular SEO practices still matter for its AI features. It does not require special AI markup or an llms.txt file. Useful content helps you prepare your site, but AI citations are never guaranteed.
Want a practical review of your content and site access? Discuss your project.
Sources
Sources checked 14 October 2026.