meraGEO checks whether ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini mention a product when people ask them for recommendations in its category. On October 28 the stored scan of merageo.com came back with a visibility score of 3 out of 100, and a label of "Invisible".
Here is the breakdown, from eight category questions per model:
| Model | Answers that mentioned meraGEO |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT | 1 of 8 |
| Claude | 0 of 8 |
| Gemini | 0 of 8 |
The names that did come up in those answers were Profound, Peec AI and Otterly.AI.
The part I found most useful is what the site already had. merageo.com serves an llms.txt, a sitemap and a robots.txt, and all three were live when I checked them on November 3. That is the checklist a lot of GEO advice stops at, and the site still scored 3. It doesn't prove those files are useless, since one scan can't show that, but they clearly weren't enough here.
My read is that assistants lean on what other sites say about a product, and a product only gets named once other people are writing about it. That is a hypothesis, not a finding. A score from 24 answers on one day is a small sample, and answers vary from run to run, so a move of a few points wouldn't mean much.
So this is the baseline rather than a success story. Over the next few weeks the plan is to get listed on the directories that competitors appear on, publish honest comparison pages, and keep writing in places like this one. Then I'll rescan on December 1 and publish the number, whichever way it goes.
You can see the current result here: merageo.com's scan. Checking your own site is free.
Top comments (0)