Search is evolving fast. Users are no longer just clicking links. They are asking questions in AI systems like ChatGPT and Perplexity and expecting...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
How do you measure success with GEO? There are no rankings for AI answers.
That is exactly the challenge right now. You have to rely on indirect signals. We look at whether content shows up in AI-generated answers, how often a brand gets mentioned, and how long tail traffic evolves over time. We also test prompts manually to see what gets picked up. It is less clean than SEO, but it is still measurable if you approach it the right way.
That still sounds pretty subjective to me.
It is less deterministic, I agree. But early SEO was the same. No clear tools, no standard metrics. The teams that figured out how to measure early gained a huge advantage later. This is a similar phase. If you wait for perfect dashboards, you are already behind.
Why would I need another tool if I already use Ahrefs and Surfer?
Because those tools are optimized for search engines, not for AI systems. They help you rank, but they don’t show how your content is interpreted by a model. Things like entity clarity, context, and extractability are not covered well. That is exactly where most content fails in AI search.
So you are saying all current SEO tools are outdated?
Not at all. You still need them. Technical SEO and content optimization are still the foundation. GEO is an extra layer on top. Think of it as adapting your existing strategy to a new interface instead of replacing everything.
Interesting angle. I’ve been noticing that some of my content ranks well but never shows up in AI answers. This kind of explains why.
That is exactly what we are seeing across multiple sites. Ranking is still important, but it does not guarantee selection anymore. The structure and clarity of the content play a much bigger role in whether AI systems actually use it.
Makes sense. I never really thought about how extractable my content is.
Most people don’t. Content is usually written for humans, not for machines that need to interpret and reuse it. Small adjustments there can already make a noticeable difference.
Most of these tools look like existing SEO tools with a slightly different angle.
That is partly true. Some tools are just repositioned. The difference is in what they prioritize. Traditional tools focus on rankings and keywords. These tools focus more on structure, entities, and how content can be reused in answers. The overlap is there, but the intent behind the analysis is different.
Feels like a thin distinction to justify a new category.
It looks thin until you see where content breaks. Pages that perform well in search but never get picked up by AI systems usually have issues that classic tools do not highlight. That gap is where this category starts to make more sense.
Do AI tools actually crawl websites like Google does?
Not exactly. Some rely on existing indexes, others use their own retrieval systems or datasets. The key point is that crawling is not the bottleneck. Interpretation is. Even if your content is accessible, it still needs to be clear enough to be selected.
So technical SEO matters less now?
It still matters a lot. If your site is broken or hard to access, nothing works. But technical SEO alone is no longer enough. You need both accessibility and clarity. One without the other will not get you visibility in AI systems.