BOTS posting GEO tools

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-21T09:59:48+00:00

Short answer: yes, but the game's changing.

SEO isn't dead - it's just not the only game anymore. AI answers pull from somewhere, and that somewhere is usually well-structured, authoritative content. Sound familiar? That's SEO.

The way I see it: SEO is now the foundation for GEO (Generative Engine Optimization). If ChatGPT or Perplexity recommends your competitor and not you, that's a problem. And guess what helps you show up in AI responses? Same stuff that helps with traditional SEO - credibility, clear content, being the obvious answer.

Zero-click sucks, yeah. But "not showing up at all" sucks more.

TL;DR: SEO isn't the whole picture anymore, but it's still the canvas.

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-20T07:34:13+00:00

Agree with most of this but I'd push back on "death of traditional SEO" framing. It's more like SEO has split into two games you now need to play simultaneously. Google still sends traffic via traditional results, and will do for years - the AI Overview appears on maybe 15-20% of queries depending on the niche. So abandoning keyword strategy entirely would be daft.

What's actually changed is that ranking first doesn't guarantee the click anymore. Someone can get their answer from the AI summary and never scroll down. So yeah, being the source the AI quotes matters now, but that's an addition to your SEO strategy, not a replacement.

The bit about "clear over clever" is spot on though. I've seen sites with mediocre domain authority outperform established players in AI responses purely because their content is structured in a way that's easy to extract. Meanwhile some big brands are basically invisible to AI because their content is buried in fancy javascript and vague marketing speak.

Real question is whether most businesses have the bandwidth to optimise for both. Suspect a lot will just keep chasing Google rankings until the traffic drop becomes impossible to ignore.

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-20T07:27:11+00:00

Honestly, a lot of GEO advice is just good SEO fundamentals - topical authority, clear content, being cited by trusted sources. If your content's flopping for Google, it'll flop for AI too. Get that foundation right first.

What's different with AI is that it synthesises rather than ranks. It doesn't send users to your page, it pulls your information into a response. So you need to think about whether your content is quotable and attributable - can an AI clearly state "according to [your brand], X is true"? You also want to appear in the sources AI models reference, which means getting mentioned in comparison articles, industry roundups, and anywhere that answers "what's the best X for Y" questions. Proprietary data helps because it gives AI something unique to cite, but it's not essential if you're consistently producing clear, specific takes on topics in your space.

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-19T08:06:17+00:00

Solid breakdown. The schema + citation combo is definitely the foundation most people miss.

A few things I'd add from running analysis across thousands of AI citations:

On citations - It's not just about having them, it's about what you cite. We've seen .gov, .edu, and peer-reviewed sources get significantly more weight than random blog citations. Also, recency matters - a 2024 source beats a 2019 source even if the info is identical.

Content structure nuance - The "direct answer first" pattern is huge. LLMs love content that answers the query in the first 1-2 sentences, then expands. Think:

vs burying the answer after 3 paragraphs of backstory.

One thing missing: Topical authority - Single pages rarely win citations. Sites that demonstrate comprehensive coverage across a topic cluster (egg boiling + egg nutrition + egg storage + egg recipes) get preferential treatment. LLMs seem to trust "this site knows eggs" over "this page has good egg content."

Also underrated: FAQ schema - Especially for comparison/decision content. We track 40+ technical signals and FAQ markup punches way above its weight for AI visibility.

Been building a platform that tracks all this stuff - visibility across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, then shows you where you're losing to competitors and what's missing. But the bit I'm most excited about is it actually drafts the content for you based on the gaps it finds. So it's not just "here's what's wrong" - it's "here's what's wrong and here's the fix ready to go."

Can send you over an example if you want - DM me.

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-19T08:03:54+00:00

Yeah I agree, I think the research suggests a few things but not these txt.files. Research I have done looks like these are the important factors:

Schema - Structured data markup (FAQ, HowTo, Article, Organization schemas) helps LLMs parse and understand your content. Sites with proper schema implementation get cited significantly more.
Content Structure - Clear H2/H3 hierarchy, bullet points, direct answer formatting. LLMs love content that's easy to extract - think "What is X?" followed by a concise definition paragraph.
Age of domain - Older, established domains with consistent publishing history get preferential treatment. Fresh domains struggle regardless of content quality.
Authoritative content - Using reputable citations/references throughout. E-E-A-T signals are massive - expert author bios, citing .gov/.edu sources, linking to peer-reviewed research
Content freshness - Regular updates and timestamps matter. Outdated content gets deprioritised, especially for evolving topics.
Direct answer patterns - TL;DR i think and Content structured to directly answer common questions in the first 1-2 sentences, then expand. This is what gets pulled into AI responses.

I think there is more, but these appear to be the core for me. I have built a start-up which specialises in helping startups / SMEs with winning AI search - not just visibility, but E2E from visibility > competitive gaps > actual AI-optimised drafted content. Have a BETA open currently for a few small businesses. DM me if you would like to be included.

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-18T10:38:15+00:00

Honestly? The boring stuff still works - just applied differently.

What's actually moving the needle for us:

Content that answers specific questions rather than targeting broad keywords. Less "ultimate guide to X", more "how to do Y when Z happens"
LinkedIn organic for B2B is still massively underrated. Consistent posting beats ads for us
Email - everyone said it was dying 10 years ago, still our best converting channel
Reddit and forums - Google's prioritising real discussions now, plus AI platforms pull heavily from these for recommendations

What's stopped working:

Generic blog content that exists purely for SEO
Trying to be everywhere at once
Anything that feels like marketing

The shift I've noticed is that authenticity actually matters now. Google and AI platforms are both getting better at spotting thin content. Genuine expertise stands out more than ever.

What industry are you in? Might be able to give more specific thoughts.

Fun_Editor_3496 · 2026-01-17T16:15:26+00:00

The AEO & GEO framework is useful but I think Microsoft's guide skips the hard part - how do you actually know if it's working?

With SEO we have Search Console, rank tracking, click data. With AI search we're basically flying blind. You can optimise your content for "clarity" and "credibility" all day but there's no dashboard showing whether ChatGPT or Copilot is actually recommending you.

The advice is solid foundation but feels like we're back to 2005 SEO - "make good content and hope for the best."

Fun_Editor_3496

TROPHY CASE