Questions about GEO, our research, and how we work.

GEO is the practice of making your pages more likely to be cited by AI engines such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews. It builds on SEO, but it focuses on the signals that affect whether AI systems quote your content, not just whether a page ranks in search.

That includes answer-first structure, question-led headings, freshness cues, schema, and the trust signals that make a page feel safe to extract from. Strong SEO helps you get discovered. GEO helps you get used.

No. You need to add to it. Your SEO foundation still matters because AI engines value authority, backlinks, and domain trust, but AI also looks at signals that traditional SEO often ignores, such as content structure, visible freshness, and how easy a page is to extract into a direct answer.

We treat GEO as an additional layer on top of SEO, not a replacement for it. The best outcome is not choosing one over the other. It is building pages that can both rank and be cited.

Yes. Ranking first on Google does not guarantee that AI systems will cite you. Our research and third-party studies both point to a gap between traditional rankings and AI visibility because AI engines use a different mix of signals when deciding what to quote.

We regularly see strong organic pages get ignored by AI because the page is hard to extract from, looks stale, or lacks the structural and trust cues that make it citation-ready. GEO closes that gap.

No. GEO shares some foundations with SEO, but it emphasizes a different outcome and a different set of content patterns. The goal is not only to rank or drive clicks. The goal is to become the source an AI system chooses to summarize, cite, or quote.

That is why we care so much about question-based headings, direct answers early, self-contained sections, schema, and freshness markers. Those patterns matter because they match how AI retrieval and synthesis work.

Cited is a research-backed agency, not a self-serve SaaS dashboard. We use software internally to run the analysis, but clients hire us for judgment, prioritization, and hands-on implementation support.

That matters because GEO work is not just about seeing a score. It is about deciding what to change, coordinating content and technical work, and adapting when AI engines change their behavior.

Cited audits how AI engines see your brand, identifies the signal gaps costing you citations, and helps your team fix them. That work spans content structure, schema, freshness, credibility signals, and the implementation details that turn insight into output.

Some clients use the free audit as a roadmap. Others hire us to work alongside their content, SEO, and development teams until the highest-impact changes are live.

We optimize for ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and Gemini because each engine has its own retrieval patterns and citation behavior. The overlap is real, but the weighting is not identical, which is why generic AI advice usually feels shallow.

Our process looks at cross-engine patterns and engine-specific differences so the recommendations are useful in practice, not just theoretically correct in one environment.

Yes. We work with companies outside the US and we can analyze prompts for specific markets and languages. The core approach stays the same: understand the prompts that matter, see what AI engines currently surface, and close the signal gaps on the pages that should be winning.

Our work already spans multiple markets, including the US and Brazil, and it fits both in-house teams and distributed agency relationships.

We test them against real citation outcomes. Our research measures hundreds of signals across real pages, then checks which signals are meaningfully associated with higher citation likelihood across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews.

That is why our recommendations are phrased in terms of measured effect and not opinion. If a tactic does not hold up in the data, we do not keep pushing it just because it sounds smart.

We collect real AI responses, identify which pages get cited, measure the signals present on those pages, and test whether those signals are associated with stronger citation outcomes. A tactic only becomes a recommendation if it shows up as a real pattern in the analysis.

Our current research covers thousands of pages across thousands of domains and spans ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews. The goal is to separate attractive theory from durable signal.

In our system, statistically significant means a signal showed a measurable relationship with citation outcomes after we corrected for random chance. We do not ship recommendations because they feel intuitive. We ship them because the effect survives the math.

That is why the methodology includes odds ratios, regression, and multiple-testing correction. Without those checks, it is too easy to confuse noise with a tactic.

When AI engines change, we retest the signals and update the recommendations instead of treating the old playbook as permanent. GEO is not a static checklist, so a serious agency should behave like a research function, not a template factory.

That is also why clients hire us for an ongoing working relationship. The value is not only finding the current gaps. It is staying aligned with what the evidence says next.

In the free audit, we query ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews for the prompts that matter to your business, score your relevant pages against validated signals, and walk you through the biggest gaps. You leave with a GEO view of your current position, not a generic pitch deck.

The output is practical: a clear picture of what the engines are saying, which pages should be winning, and which changes are most likely to move the needle first.

Almost nothing. Send us your domain and the prompts you care about, and we handle the collection and analysis. The main thing we ask for is enough context to understand the questions your buyers actually ask.

That keeps the process lightweight for your team while still grounding the analysis in the pages and use cases that matter commercially.

After the audit, you keep the written summary and decide how far you want to go. Some teams implement the changes internally, some ask us to help execute, and some use the audit as a benchmark before starting later.

The important point is that the audit is not a bait-and-switch. It gives you a usable handoff even if you never move into a larger engagement.

Yes. We are not a reporting-only shop. If you want hands-on help, we work with your team to implement the content, structural, and technical changes surfaced in the audit.

That can include rewriting sections, restructuring page layouts, adding schema, improving freshness cues, guiding developers, and coordinating with your existing SEO or content partners.

Yes. We often work alongside an existing SEO agency or in-house team rather than replacing them. GEO is usually the missing layer, not a reason to throw away the rest of your marketing system.

That model works well because your current team already understands the business and the content. We add the research-backed GEO lens and help translate it into specific changes they can ship.

Pricing is custom because the scope changes dramatically from one company to the next. A business with a handful of core pages and a narrow prompt set needs a very different engagement from a company managing dozens of pages, markets, and internal stakeholders.

The free audit gives both sides enough context to scope the work honestly. It is a better basis for pricing than publishing a number that hides the real variables.

ROI depends on how much revenue is influenced by search, how strong your content foundation already is, and how quickly your team can implement the recommended changes. Teams that already invest in content and SEO often see the fastest return because the base is already there.

What we can say with confidence is that the signals we recommend are backed by measured effect sizes, so the conversation starts with evidence instead of guesswork.

No serious GEO firm should promise guaranteed citations, because AI engines change and variance is real. What we can promise is that our recommendations are research-backed, that we will tell you when the evidence is weak, and that we will adjust the approach when the data changes.

That is the practical difference between hype and disciplined work. We manage uncertainty by measuring it, not by pretending it is not there.

Some technical changes, such as schema updates or clearer freshness cues, can start showing impact within one to two weeks once engines recrawl the page. Content restructuring changes, such as better headings and answer-first summaries, often show movement within two to four weeks.

Authority signals take longer, which is why we usually prioritize the fastest-impact fixes first and build compounding work around them.

Tracking tools tell you whether you showed up. Cited goes further by explaining why you did or did not show up, ranking the factors behind that result, and helping your team implement the highest-impact changes.

That makes the service operational rather than observational. A dashboard is useful, but it is not the same thing as a research-backed team helping you change the underlying page.

An SEO audit evaluates how a site performs for search crawlers and rankings. A GEO audit evaluates how AI systems decide whether your pages are credible, extractable, current, and worth citing in an answer.

There is overlap, but the emphasis is different. GEO cares much more about answer-first structure, question matching, quotable passages, freshness signals, and the patterns that make a page easy for AI systems to lift from cleanly.

No. The free audit has no commitment at all. For ongoing engagements, we scope work on a project or monthly basis depending on what makes sense for both sides. There are no long-term contracts or cancellation penalties.

We earn continued work by delivering measurable results, not by locking clients into agreements. If the work is not producing value, you should be free to stop.