How My Small Website Was Cited in Google AI Overviews (And What I Learned)
A few days ago, I noticed something that genuinely surprised me.
While searching Google, I found that one of my articles had been cited in Google AI Overviews.
For a small personal website, seeing that happen was exciting.
I'm not writing this because I've discovered some secret GEO strategy or because I think I've figured out how Google's AI chooses sources.
I haven't.
Instead, I wanted to document one real observation, explain what my website looked like before it happened, and share a few lessons that might be useful if you're building websites in the AI search era.
The website
I run a small project called SeoGeo Tech, where I publish practical articles about Technical SEO, structured data, and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO).
It's not backed by a company.
There isn't a marketing team behind it.
I don't buy traffic or run backlink campaigns.
The site is simply a place where I document experiments, publish implementation guides, and share what I'm learning while building in public.
What happened
One of my articles appeared as a cited source in Google AI Overviews.
When I first saw it, I refreshed the page several times because I wanted to make sure it wasn't a temporary result.
It wasn't.
Seeing a small independent website referenced by AI-generated search results was encouraging, especially because the site is still relatively new.
What I focused on
People often ask whether GEO is completely different from traditional SEO.
After this experience, my personal opinion is that many of the fundamentals are still the same.
Instead of trying to "optimize for AI," I focused on building pages that are useful, technically sound, and easy to understand.
Some of the things I consistently worked on include:
- Writing original, experience-based content instead of rewriting existing articles
- Organizing content with clear headings and logical structure
- Adding screenshots where they improve understanding
- Using descriptive page titles and meta descriptions
- Implementing structured data where appropriate
- Keeping internal links organized
- Making pages load quickly
- Publishing content around a consistent topic instead of covering unrelated subjects
None of these are secret techniques.
Most of them are simply good publishing practices.
What I didn't do
I think it's equally important to mention what didn't happen.
I didn't suddenly gain thousands of backlinks.
I didn't use any AI visibility service.
I didn't purchase traffic.
I didn't submit the article to Google in any special way.
And I certainly don't expect every article to appear in AI Overviews.
This is only one observation from one website.
It shouldn't be treated as proof that any particular optimization caused the citation.
My biggest takeaway
Before starting this project, I assumed GEO would require an entirely new set of optimization techniques.
Now I'm less convinced that's true.
To me, GEO feels more like an extension of good SEO than a replacement for it.
Helpful content still matters.
Clear structure still matters.
Trustworthy information still matters.
Technical quality still matters.
If AI systems are selecting sources from the web, these characteristics seem just as valuable today as they were before AI-generated search became popular.
What's next
I'm continuing to publish technical SEO and GEO articles while documenting everything publicly.
Some future experiments I'm interested in include:
- Comparing different article structures
- Testing how visual evidence affects AI citations
- Measuring changes after technical SEO improvements
- Observing how structured data influences AI search visibility over time
Whether these experiments produce positive results or not, I plan to share the outcomes.
I think the community benefits more from honest observations than from bold claims.
Final thoughts
This experience didn't convince me that GEO replaces SEO.
If anything, it reminded me that solid fundamentals still matter.
As AI search continues to evolve, I suspect websites that consistently publish useful, trustworthy, and technically well-structured content will continue to have an advantage.
That's the direction I'm planning to keep following.
If you're running similar experiments with AI search, I'd love to hear what you've observed.
For anyone interested, the original article (with additional screenshots and details) is available here:
Top comments (0)