Measurement and platform variability
Tracking citations, mentions, referral traffic, share of voice, sentiment, attribution, and the differing behaviors of ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Mode, and AI Overviews.
42%
Best tweets about Generative Engine Optimization
50 Best Tweets About Generative Engine Optimization (2026)
Browse the best tweets about generative engine optimization, including AI citations, LLM visibility, content strategy, measurement, and GEO research.
Evidence-based GEO methods for improving citations and visibility in generative engines, with research, experiments, measurement, and clear outcomes.
- Creators
- 36
- Updated
Original Xholic analysis
What 50 top Generative Engine Optimization posts reveal
The conversation frames GEO as a measurement-led extension of SEO: build retrievable, citation-ready assets and off-site authority, test across engines, and resist promises that treat volatile citations as guaranteed outcomes.
- Dominant tone
- Positive
- Median score
- 8.06
- Leading format
- Prediction
- Recent posts
- 38%
46% of posts
All-time engagement
44% of posts
Published in 90 days
Conversation map
The themes creators return to
Retrieval and SEO foundations
How organic rankings, indexing, crawlability, technical SEO, freshness, and search-engine grounding affect AI retrieval and citation likelihood.
42%
Citation-ready content design
Creating clear, extractable answer blocks, definitions, Q&A sections, tables, original data, and structured pages that can be retrieved and cited by generative engines.
38%
Brand entity and authority building
Strengthening brand associations, branded-query results, topical focus, reviews, links, earned media, and authoritative third-party references.
28%
Evidence versus GEO hype
Scrutinizing causal claims, unreliable outputs, guaranteed-results pitches, self-promotional listicles, and unproven optimization tactics.
28%
Multichannel citation ecosystem
Building visibility beyond owned websites through Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, directories, Wikipedia, marketplaces, communities, and publisher coverage.
22%
AI search traffic and click economics
The impact of AI answers and zero-click behavior on organic clicks, traffic quality, conversion intent, publisher visibility, and channel allocation.
12%
Fan-out and prompt research
Using AI prompt tracking, query fan-outs, clustering, citation-source analysis, and content-gap mapping to identify opportunities.
10%
Tone and stance
Sentiment Positive leads
Author posture Supportive leads
Performance benchmark
- Median likes
- 24
- Median reposts
- 3
- Median replies
- 6
- Median views
- 2.2K
Posts with media make up 68% of this collection. Their median all-time score is 7.90, compared with 8.88 for text-only posts.
Format mix
- Prediction 44% · score 10.4
- Announcement 36% · score 5.17
- Case Study 18% · score 10.9
- Story 2% · score 46.8
Consensus and debate
Where creators agree, and where they do not
Shared view
SEO foundations remain central
Multiple contributors argue that crawlability, rankings, credibility, and search-grounded discovery remain important inputs to AI visibility, rather than being displaced by GEO.
Shared view
Make answers easy to extract
Clear standalone definitions, examples, lists, Q&A blocks, and source-style assets are repeatedly presented as practical formats for retrieval and citation.
Shared view
Authority extends beyond owned pages
The thread emphasizes earned mentions, reviews, publisher coverage, communities, and other third-party sources as part of the citation environment.
Shared view
Measure across engines and prompts
Prompt tracking, fan-out exports, citation analysis, referral attribution, and platform-specific testing are positioned as necessary because engines can return different results.
Open debate
GEO is a distinct discipline or good SEO
Some frame GEO as a new operational layer with new research workflows, while others argue its durable levers are conventional ranking, authority, and discoverability.
Open debate
Rankings predict citations, but not universally
One cited study links stronger Google positions to higher ChatGPT citation frequency, while case posts describe substantial ChatGPT citations despite weak or absent Google visibility.
Open debate
Citations versus clicks as the outcome
AI Overviews are reported to reduce outbound organic clicks in an experiment, while other posts argue citation visibility can still serve awareness or recommendation goals; the appropriate KPI remains contested.
Open debate
Tactics are signals, not proven guarantees
Posts recommend structured formats and freshness, but critics warn that observed traits may correlate with pre-existing authority and that repeated prompts can yield inconsistent outputs.
What performs
Patterns behind standout posts
Measurement and SEO foundations lead discussion
Measurement/platform variability and retrieval/SEO foundations each account for 42% of tweets (21 each), making them the joint-largest themes in the supplied analytics.
Evidence-rich case studies earned outsized scores
The top outlier is a step-by-step AI Overview citation case study (167.62 all-time score); fan-out workflow and citation-ready source-page posts also appear among the supplied outliers.
Predictions were the most common format
Predictions comprise 44% of posts, versus 36% announcements and 18% case studies. Case studies nevertheless have a higher supplied median all-time score than announcements.
Media did not lead median performance
Media appeared in 34 posts (68%), but its supplied median all-time score is 7.9, below the 8.88 median for text posts.
Statistical standouts
- View standout post 1 Score 167.6 · 20.8× median
- View standout post 2 Score 131.6 · 16.33× median
- View standout post 3 Score 115.7 · 14.36× median
- View standout post 4 Score 87.5 · 10.86× median
- View standout post 5 Score 75.4 · 9.36× median
Creator landscape
Who shapes this conversation
The five most represented creators account for 20% of the selected posts.
-
1. Aleyda Solis 🕊️
@aleyda
2 posts
-
2. Charles Floate 📈
@Charles_SEO
2 posts
-
3. Chris Donnelly
@donnellycss
2 posts
-
4. Daniel Foley Carter
@foley_seo
2 posts
-
5. Gaetano DiNardi
@gaetano_nyc
2 posts
-
6. Glenn Gabe
@glenngabe
2 posts
Charles Floate leads the listed voices
Among top voices, Charles Floate has the highest supplied median all-time score (141.68) across two tweets, including the strongest outlier in the evidence set.
Aleyda Solis pairs research with workflows
Aleyda Solis’s two listed posts combine citation-retrieval research with search-update curation; her supplied median all-time score is 16.86.
Critical voices add necessary guardrails
Several creators focus on limits: causal overreach, self-serving listicles, unreliable outputs, and overpromised agency outcomes. This supports an editorial stance that separates experiments from guarantees.
Since the previous snapshot
What changed since Aug 12, 2026
- 54% of the selected posts remained.
- The creator count changed by -1.
- The leading sentiment remained stable.
How this analysis was made
Themes, sentiment, stance, and post format are classified per tweet. All counts, shares, medians, creator concentration, freshness, and performance comparisons are then calculated directly from the published snapshot.
Xholic's all-time score compares engagement while accounting for reach, post age, and creator consistency. It is used for relative comparisons within this collection.
This report analyzes the exact 50-post snapshot shown below. AI identifies editorial categories and drafts explanations; all statistics are calculated from the snapshot, and every narrative claim is checked against cited posts before publication.
Best Generative Engine Optimization tweets
Top Generative Engine Optimization tweets from 36 creators
Ranked 01–50
- 01
@Charles_SEO ·
We're now being cited in Google AI Overviews for core SEO terms.. right next to Moz and SEMRush 👀 No links, no authority play, just clever old school NLP SEO re-tuned for the new AI search interface... Here is the STEP-BY-STEP play: 1 - Reverse engineer SERP gaps; Your site needs to be able to rank in the traditional algo first, so pages where you are already in the top 100 are a must and the higher the start, the better the result. 2 - Identify the gaps between what THEY cover and what the AI Overview is trying to answer. 3 - Write a section on YOUR page that fills that exact gap, formatted clearly with a definition, example, or list that Google can easily extract as a standalone chunk. I added several more anchor text types using this exact method, "generic" wasn't the only one I targeted here. 4 - Make sure that chunk can stand alone as a complete answer to a sub-question within the broader topic. That's it! You're not competing for the whole page, you're competing for ONE chunk of the AI Overview. It's very similar to how we used to optimize for featured snippets, but with a lot more dynamic inputs required - It's usually not the one H2 anymore, you need to optimize (at least) several chunks to have the best chance of getting visibility. In this case, we were cited for the definition because our page had the clearest, most concise explanation with a practical example - Something our competitors either buried in paragraphs or didn't isolate properly. Unfortunately, we usually don't get to directly "win" a #1 spot anymore in these new SERPs, BUT the upside is you can now get visibility for queries your page would NEVER have ranked #1 for traditionally.. and you can get cited MULTIPLE times across the same AI Overview if you optimize several chunks well. Less clicks, more visibility and "brand awareness" - A lot of corporate marketers would actually prefer this anyway.... And this all rewards going broader and deeper on your pages. The more well structured, extractable chunks you have, the more chances you give Google to pull from you. The traditional algo is linear, this new search is much more dynamic, less ranking, more retrieval.
- 02
@lilyraynyc ·
One of the quickest and easiest AI search workflows (after setting up prompt tracking) is to export all fan-out queries and cluster them into core topics for analysis and content mapping. Trying to optimize for individual fan-out queries is not a great use of time, and building one page per fan-out will likely lead to SEO spam problems down the line. (Reminds me of popular pre-Helpful Content Update tactics 😅) But analyzing query fan-outs *at scale,* clustering them into core topics, and identifying the key trends among them is one of the best places to start with AEO/GEO, in my opinion. (Assuming you’re tracking a comprehensive set of prompts!) The output is a matrix similar to the keyword research matrices we’ve built for SEO for years, and it lets you compare your existing content portfolio to the key questions language models ask when researching your brand, products, and services. That said, I still believe SEO tools that use *actual search volumes* (not highly estimated / made-up “prompt volumes”) should stay part of this process. I just did this for a client in 5 minutes using @peec_ai, which allows for a quick export of all fan-out queries (as do several other LLM trackers). Then I uploaded the list into Claude for clustering. Another bonus is that you can see how fan-outs differ by language model. I see this as a new layer on top of our existing keyword and topic research. It gives us a window into how LLMs actually break down and research a topic, a signal we didn’t have access to before, and it provides deeper insights than what we can gather with traditional keyword research tools.
- 03
@Charles_SEO ·
During a recent podcast I did with Edward Sturm, I talked about a super easy link building technique that even beginner AI SEO noobs can do! 🔗 It's building link bait content that is optimized to be sourced up by AIs like ChatGPT. The best type of content for this is usually statistics pages, but you can do history, facts, comparisons, timelines, definitions, glossaries, etc... Here’s the simple, 4 step play 👇 1 - Research pages that journalists + bloggers + AI models constantly need to reference from your niche. 2 - Build a single "source of truth" page (stats, dates, tables, bullet facts etc...) 3 - Format it so an AI can scrape, summarise, and cite it without thinking - Short Q&A style headers with optimized chunks work well too. 4 - Let ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini do the distribution for you, and gain natural RD over time. When AI answers questions, writers (and automated content tools/agents) copy and paste the sources it suggests, those sources turn into natural editorial links. I only wrote the below post in May last year and it already managed to pick up 6 RD worth thousands of dollars with some patience and a couple hours to produce the post. There is an abundance of opportunities here if you are creative enough as well, and that’s the exciting part. This isn’t some fragile loophole or trend that disappears overnight, it’s a structural shift in how information gets discovered and referenced. You will still need to build pages that actually deserve to be cited, but then the links come naturally and compound quietly in the background. This is one of those rare tactics where beginners can win early and experienced SEOs can scale it aggressively. Build once, let AI do the heavy lifting, and enjoy links turning up without you ever asking for them.
- 04
@codyschneider ·
How to Build an Agent That Researches and Publishes Content for AEO Automatically The shift is happening. Instead of scrolling through Google links, people ask ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity for answers. This is AEO (Answer Engine Optimization)—and it's where visibility lives now. Here's how to build an autonomous agent that does the work for you. What AI Engines Actually Want Structure beats length. AI parses content in 100-300 token chunks. Lead with declarative statements. Use clear headings and bullet points. Freshness matters. 70% of AI-cited pages were updated in the last 12 months. Your content needs regular refreshes or you lose citations. Answer directly. No more keyword stuffing. AI extracts the best answer to the user's question—hit the point immediately or don't get cited. The Agent Architecture 1. Query Intelligence Monitor what questions AI engines are being asked about your topic Use tools like Searchable to track ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity citations Build a prioritized list of questions to target 2. Competitive Intelligence Query AI engines for your target questions Extract and analyze what's being cited Find gaps—what isn't being answered well? 3. Content Generation Generate content based on question + competitive analysis Apply brand voice and style guidelines Include schema markup (FAQ, Article, HowTo) 4. Automated Refresh Monitor citation decay Trigger refreshes when visibility drops or quarterly minimum Implementation Workflow Daily Trigger → Query AI Engines → Extract Citations → Analyze Gaps → Generate Content → Apply Schema → Human Review → Publish → Monitor Performance Content Standards Every piece needs: Question-based headline Direct answer in first 2 sentences H2s for each sub-question 800-1500 words (focused, not verbose) 2+ stats or citations FAQ/Article schema markup 2-3 internal links Measuring Success AI Citations: How often you're cited in AI responses Share of Voice: Your % vs competitors Traffic from AI: GA4 attribution to AI referrals Pitfalls to Avoid Publishing without human review – AI makes mistakes Ignoring structure – AI can't cite wall-of-text Wrong goals – Optimize for citations, not rankings Skipping technical SEO – Schema, crawlability, speed still matter Start Simple Pick one topic cluster to test Build the research loop first Add generation once research works Add publishing and refresh as you scale The companies winning at AEO treat content as a machine-driven system. They use automation for research, creation, and refresh—so humans focus on strategy. You set the strategy. The agent executes.
- 05
- 06
@illyism ·
just got off a SEO consulting call with a founder who built a crazy cool product but that nobody knows about yet 🤙 SEO is awesome at demand capture, but not at demand generation so here is the exact playbook we mapped out: 👇 how to do seo for a product nobody searches for: 1. write a "top 20 best <category>" listicle for your niche 2. put your product at #1 3. include 19 other non-competing indie products 4. email those 19 founders: "i just featured you, can you include us in your listicles?" boom 💥 free, highly relevant backlinks from real businesses 👍 bonus insight: find the exact articles that chatgpt cites for your target keywords (press on "Sources" in the bottom), email those specific authors to get added to their existing posts stop fighting for impossible keywords, build alliances instead! 🙌
- 07
@jbobbink ·
I keep hearing SEOs say "but our AI content is ranking fine." That's exactly the problem. Tomek Rudzki from Peec AI just published research that should make every content team pause. They analyzed companies using popular AI content generation tools and found that 36% of the brands in their success stories had massive Google visibility drops. For one tool, it was even worse. 75% of the showcase clients had significant traffic losses. The pattern is always the same. Rank, bank and tank. Publish hundreds of AI articles. Rank quickly. Monetize. Then get hit by a core update or manual action. Abandon domain. Repeat. Google's March 2024 update deindexed 837 sites overnight. Originality AI confirmed 100% of affected pages had AI-generated content. 20 million monthly visits gone. But here's the part most people miss. When Grokipedia lost its Google rankings in early 2026, Peec AI's Malte Landwehr tracked what happened across AI search engines. ChatGPT, AI Mode, and AI Overviews all reduced citations at the exact same time. One Google penalty now makes you invisible everywhere. LLMs use search engines for grounding. If Google demotes you, ChatGPT stops citing you too. Now let me be honest here. I work in industries like casino where rank, bank and tank is a common and accepted tactic. You build a site, extract value, and move on when it gets hit. I'm not going to pretend that doesn't work. In some niches it's simply part of the business model. But here's what bothers me. The companies selling AI content generation tools are marketing them to brands building long-term businesses. SaaS companies. Ecommerce brands. B2B companies. And they're not being transparent about what happens next. Rudzki found that 3 out of 4 major global brands featured on one tool's website had suffered significant visibility losses. These aren't disposable affiliate sites. These are real companies with real reputations. After 30 years in SEO, I see a clear line: Rank, bank and tank as a deliberate strategy with eyes wide open? Fine. That's a business decision. Selling AI content at scale to brands without warning them about the risk? That's irresponsible. The data backs this up. NP Digital tested 744 articles across 68 websites and found human-written content generates 5.44x more traffic over time. Ahrefs analyzed 600,000 pages across 100,000 keywords and found only 4.6% of top-ranking pages are purely AI-generated. And Lily Ray predicts a huge crackdown on scaled AI content in 2026. If you're a tool provider or consultant, be honest with your clients. Tell them what the research actually shows. Let them make an informed decision. Rudzki's advice is simple: before you publish, ask yourself. Would I want to read this? Does it add something you can't get from ChatGPT itself? If the answer is no, don't hit publish. Sources: → Tomek Rudzki, "The real risk of AI-generated content" (Peec AI, Feb 25 2026): https://t.co/GLSCE63W7G → Originality AI, AI content penalty analysis (2024): → Neil Patel / NP Digital, "AI vs Human" study, 744 articles, 68 sites (2024) → Si Quan Ong & Xibeijia Guan / Ahrefs, 600K page analysis (Jul 2025)
- 08
@eric_seufert ·
Google's AI Overviews decrease outbound organic clicks by 40%. A new paper by researchers at Carnegie Mellon and the Indian School of Business finds that AI Overviews were triggered in roughly 41% of observed Google searches and, when triggered, reduced outbound organic clicks by about 40%. The presence of AI Overviews also increased the likelihood of a zero-click search by roughly 35%. The authors implement a field experiment using a custom Google Chrome extension. Users with the extension installed were randomly assigned into three groups: 1) those who experienced Google Search with no changes, including AI Overviews when available (control), 2) those who experienced Google Search with AI Overviews dynamically removed and the remaining SERP elements shifted upward (treatment), and 3) those who were redirected to Google’s AI Mode when they attempted to use Google Search. The authors find that, for searches in which an AI Overview was triggered, users in the Control group clicked outbound organic links roughly 40% less frequently than users in the "Hide AIO" treatment group. They also find that Control users were roughly 35% more likely to conduct zero-click searches than users whose AI Overviews were removed. Further, the authors observe no statistically meaningful difference in sponsored clicks between the groups, suggesting that AI Overviews primarily substitute for organic publisher visits rather than ad engagement. This is consistent with my thesis in my Google's Gambit series: that Google would execute a wholesale, Ship-of-Theseus-like transformation of Search by introducing AI Overviews, transitioning it from a distribution mechanism to an engagement sink. Paper pre-print linked in comments.
- 09
@foley_seo ·
SEO is DEAD. Right, now I've got your attention, I've done something that I hope SEOs find useful, I've put together an article on NavBoost, I've also re-created the entire Google Content Warehouse leak and added "probabilistic weighting". I'm fed up of seeing AI SEO slop polluting my feed, so I thought I'd be speculative and put together some insights that SEOs may find useful. To the GEO bro's out there, pipe down, if you don't rank the probability of being CITED disappears so stick your "intrinsic semantic context paragraph mapping" in the bin - what you SHOULD focus on is: A.) Making your content less shit B.) Making Google see that user behaviour SHOWS your content is less shit C.) Making Google trust your spammy ass domain, drop your DR BS, get real links from sites with traffic, still promoting DR? Do you know what DR is? It stands for "Don't Rank" - that's why buying shit loads of links from artificially inflated domains leads to not ranking thus DR - don't rank. Don't ask me what DA stands for you'd be offended. D.) Making your brand stronger (no, it;s not GEO, it's called links, positive reviews and brand searches) Let's nail this down now. John Mueller HIMSELF said "GOOD SEO is GOOD GEO" Do you know what that means? If your site is GOOD and RANKS more prominently it's: 1. MORE LIKELY to be found during RAG / GROUNDING / QUERY FAN OUT 2. MORE LIKELY to actually achieve an objective i.e. rank, convert, make £ Now, I go back to NAVBOOST because it's always been something I've been fascinated by. WHY? Because for YEARS people called me a conspiracy theorist when I said: "Google is using user behaviour data in ranking" Even Google denied it for YEARSSSSS and guess what? They use it. CHROME is a trojan horse. Click behaviours are ONE OF THE BEST indicators of user satisfcation. So, everything boils back to the CORE PRINCIPLES of: 1. CREATE GOOD CONTENT 2. MEET END USER NEEDS 3. PRESENT IT IN A GOOD UX 4. BUILD TRUST IN YOUR BRAND My Navboost article also includes references to Mark Williams-Cook's 500 unsolicited tips with references to "twidlers" as well as Shai Aharony's Reboot's study on SHARED HOSTING experiment conducted by Oliver Sissons If you want to learn more about NAVBOOST > https://t.co/lVoVF8iYLj and if you fancy checking out the content warehouse rebuild with probabilistic weighting > https://t.co/CWpC57cYVo
- 10
@neilpatel ·
Branded queries are the real GEO battleground. Not unbranded ones. Everyone is chasing unbranded AI citations. Get mentioned when someone asks ChatGPT about "best CRM software" or "top marketing agencies." I understand the appeal. But it's the wrong place to start. The brands that are actually winning in AI search are locking down branded query performance first. Type your company name into Perplexity or ChatGPT right now. What comes back? For most brands, it's a mess. Outdated descriptions. Wrong product details. Competitor framing. Sometimes nothing. Fix that before anything else. AI models pull branded information from a specific set of sources: your Wikipedia presence, your Crunchbase profile, major press coverage, and the top ten pages consistently ranking for your brand name on Google. That's the citation stack you can control. The playbook is straightforward: Audit what AI says about you today. Type your brand name as a question into ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini. Screenshot the answers. Identify where the wrong information originates. Nine times out of ten, it traces back to a stale third-party profile or an old press release Google still surfaces. Update the source, not your homepage. Brands refresh their website and wonder why AI still has inaccurate information. The model isn't reading your homepage. It's reading what authoritative sources say about you. Build one genuinely citable content asset per quarter. Not a blog post. A data study, an original framework, something with your name attached to a specific idea. Branded GEO is the foundation. Unbranded citation is the ceiling. Most teams are trying to hit the ceiling before they've poured the slab.
- 11
@aleyda ·
👀 Interesting insights from @_oshdavidson / @AirOpsHQ research about The Influence of Retrieval, Fan-out, and Google SERPs on ChatGPT Citations: * 85% of Sources ChatGPT Retrieves Are Never Cited: Pages with stronger title-query alignment and clearer language were more likely to earn citations. * 32.9% of cited pages that appeared in any top-20 SERP were discovered only through fan-out. That means tracking the original keyword alone is not enough to understand where citation visibility is actually won. * Pages Ranking #1 in Google Were Cited 3.5x More Often Than Pages Outside the Top 20 SERPs (tell me again that SEO dead 😉 not) Much more! Read: https://t.co/VfiFmSfSza
- 12
@jakezward ·
Is AEO even a thing? Or is it just SEO? Here's how LLMs actually work: An LLM is not a search engine. It's a next-token predictor. It guesses the statistically likely next word based on patterns baked in during training. During that training, it processed billions of web pages. But it didn't log URLs. Didn't store sources. Didn't remember where anything came from. What's left is a frozen statistical snapshot. Not an index or database. So where does real-time retrieval come from? The search engine layer bolted on top via RAG. That's the actual information retrieval part. Because the “base” LLM can't do it alone. Which means there are only two things you can actually influence: 1. Rank in search so retrieval-based AI can cite you. Traditional, boring SEO. 2. Earn third-party coverage so the model already knows you before the prompt is typed. And that's pretty much the whole game. So stop optimising for some vague idea of 'AI.' Optimise for search engines with owned content and build brand authority for earned mentions. Are you actually doing AEO? Or just SEO?
- 13
@CyrusShepard ·
The data is in. The most cited source in Google AI mode is... Google! Congrats? 👏 Second place goes to YouTube (also Google) 👏 👏 The study from @SERanking looked at 68,313 keywords and 1,321,398 citations While it's challenging that so many clicks aren't going to traditional publishers, the silver lining is that so many citation sources can be influenced by the marketing team: • YouTube (work those transcripts) • Facebook • Reddit • Amazon (reviews) • Instagram • Wikipedia (harder, but doable) For the full study, Google "Is Google stealing your clicks in AI Mode? (1.3M+ citations analyzed)" What's your view on citations in Google's AI mode?
- 14
@glenngabe ·
It's not often you see a site doing extremely well in ChatGPT without strong Google rankings, which is why I had to dig into this case -> Surging in ChatGPT, Dead in Google – The curious case of a YMYL site with no search visibility in Google, but cited like crazy in ChatGPT The YMYL site is dead in Google, yet it's being cited like crazy in ChatGPT. Was this proof of OpenAI building its own index, or was ChatGPT grounding answers via another source? I dug into this super-interesting case to find out. And btw, I'm not sure any search engine or AI search platform should be surfacing this site at all. You can read more about this in my blog post: https://t.co/0wnugNjs96
- 15
@neilpatel ·
Google's AI Overviews are 2.5X more likely to mention a brand than ChatGPT. BrightEdge compared how often Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, and AI Mode are likely to mention a brand. And Google AI Overviews won by a lot. Not only do you want to optimize for LLMs to pull your content, but you also want them to mention your brand.
- 16
@jmoserr ·
"This GEO tactic gets you cited in LLMs!" "Interesting. How do you know that...?" "My research bro. I analyzed 10,000 prompts bro. All of the brands cited in ChatGPT have pages with expert quotes, statistics, inline citations, structured formatting, and topical depth…" "Ok…sure, but did the page get cited because it had those features? Or did it have those features because it was already high-authority content that performs well everywhere...and AI search just picked it up too?" Nobody peddling GEO fairy dust wants to answer this question. Right now, a huge chunk of GEO research is treating correlation like causation. Like these content traits are brand new levers you can pull to "get cited in AI search." Do X, get cited. Simple. Except: if everyone can just add charts and tables to a post and get cited, how does AI determine YOUR brand gets mentioned in a short output of 5 solutions in a space where thousands exist? It can't just be "do X tactics." That math doesn't work. What actually separates the brands getting cited? The same thing that's always separated them: real authority. Google's own "How Search Works" documentation states openly that links are a core signal for content quality. AI is very similar. HubSpot found that 92% of AI mentions come not from your own content, but third party sites mentioning you. So when someone says AI engines cite content with quotes, data, and good structure, they're simply observing a trait of authoritative content in general, not a "do x and get Y" causation factor. And even if these content tweaks do influence AI citation likelihood, SparkToro's recent research found there's less than a 1 in 100 chance that ChatGPT or Google AI will give the same list of brand recommendations in any two responses...even on the identical prompt run 100 times. The lists are different. The order is different. The number of results is different. Nearly every response is unique...so the agencies selling revolutionary GEO hacks are building on two broken assumptions: that these tactics directly cause citations (unproven), and that the outputs are consistent enough for those tactics to track reliably (they're not). AI search is real. It matters. Heck, we generate tons of leads from it. But the brands winning there are the same ones that have been winning everywhere... because they built actual authority over years, not because they added a data table to a blog post last Tuesday. Our own AI visibility increased the most by doing one thing: acquiring mentions + links on publications talking about our niche: being in more places that AI pulls from, increasing the likelihood AI mentions our brand.
- 17
@Hartdrawss ·
We just built a full AEO pipeline for a US family office. To simply explain; AEO = Answer Engine Optimisation. Instead of ranking on Google, the goal is to get cited inside ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude and Gemini. Here’s the system we built: - Discovery Layer: Pulled quick-win keywords from Google Search Console (positions 5–20), cross-checked with Keyword Planner, then used Exa + AI to find real questions people are asking AI tools that traditional SEO completely misses - Content Layer: Competitor analysis to find angles others missed → structured briefs → articles written with ICP context + specially formatted Q&A blocks designed for how LLMs cite information → strict 6-dimension quality scoring before publishing. - Indexing Layer: Daily automated publishing with instant cache revalidation so new content is immediately visible to crawlers. - Tracking Layer: Daily GSC sync + dashboard that flags when keywords move, stall, or drop. This is the new SEO. Most agencies are still selling backlinks. What do you think though. is AEO already changing how you think about content?
- 18
@cyrilXBT ·
GOOGLE AI MODE JUST CHANGED SEO FOREVER. It is the new AI-powered Google Search. Default for most queries now. Over a billion people a month. And it does not just read your website. It builds a picture of your brand from everywhere: Reddit. LinkedIn. YouTube. Facebook. Your site. Here is how you actually show up in it: → Pick ONE keyword and own it completely → Publish genuinely useful content across five channels: Website, video, Reddit, LinkedIn, Facebook → Embed the video inside the article on each channel → Keep it consistent so the AI connects every mention to the same entity: you Do this right and you show up in AI Mode, AI Overviews, and Perplexity from one keyword. One honest note: there is no secret setting. The AI rewards real authority, not a spam loop. Build the ecosystem, do not fake it. Bookmark this. Follow @cyrilXBT
Watch video
- 19
@gaetano_nyc ·
Most people don't know that ChatGPT defaults to branded search in its query fan outs. It uses its own training data to determine which brands are best associated with a category level search. I am going to produce a larger write-up based on what I am seeing for B2B SaaS. TLDR: The brands with the strongest category entity salience are winning in AI search. The takeaway is to build entity association with your desired flagship category and don't spread the water too thin across too many seeds. Topical drift is now a real problem if you want to be successful in GEO/AEO. Topical drift was not a massive problem for traditional SEO. We saw Patrick Stox rank some ridiculous pages like "purple laser pointers" to prove a point about topical authority being overrated. But for GEO/AEO topical drift is a problem that will hinder your success.
- 20
@itsolelehmann ·
Study this chart GEO (basically AI SEO) is about to oneshot SEO and most people aren't adjusting accordingly chatgpt alone is handling 2.5 billion queries a day now. (roughly 18% of google's entire search volume btw. it already passed bing) the thing though is that when an AI answers a question, it's not pulling from your website. it's pulling from • reddit threads • medium articles • directories • quora answers • youtube transcripts basically anywhere that already ranks or gets cited in training data so if your entire strategy is "rank my own site," you're optimizing for the wrong surface area a few things i've been learning about geo that actually seem to work: → only optimize for prompts that trigger web search (most don't, so pick your battles) → focus on high commercial intent queries (that's where the money actually moves) → third-party mentions matter more than your own content (someone else saying you're good beats you saying you're good) → answer the question in your first sentence (AI models love pulling clean, direct answers) → freshness signals matter a lot (outdated content gets skipped) → distribute across multiple platforms (reddit, medium, directories, youtube) so you show up in all the places AI is actually scraping the reddit one is kinda interesting. a lot of AI answers are basically just resurfaced reddit threads with better formatting. so having genuine, helpful reddit presence in your niche is weirdly high leverage right now i think most people are going to keep optimizing for google rankings while a growing chunk of their potential audience is just asking chatgpt instead something to keep an eye on at minimum
- 21
@foley_seo ·
I love a good case study of which Assertive has many. We've done SO much SEO work in some of the most competitive niches on earth so think of Pharma, Health, Casino, iGaming, Finance. Traditional search is NOT DYING, if you see click bait / engagement bait on LinkedIn around AI sources outperforming Google organic - don't be fooled by it. I have access to HUNDREDS of sites across GSC / GA4 across ALL kinds of niches from mainstream publications to news, health publications, you name it. CLICKS from AI SOURCES (chatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Grok, Gemini) account for less than 5%. And yet there is SO SO SO much hype around "being found and cited in LLMS" - whilst so many probably neglect the fact that traditional search is STILL, BY FAR the FIRST place most people who "aren't in the industry" go to find what they want. We didn't lose clicks to LLMS, we lost clicks to Google AI overviews. And whilst there IS a growing search market for LLMS, it's still TINY in comparison. If you are MORE PROMINENT ORGANICALLY with GOOD SEO you are far more likely naturally to appear in LLMS. Good SEO = Good GEO. Take this client - 1. Strong sustained organic growth - even though it's very likely a portion of medicine searches at a research phase are going through AI 2. These guys get around 1% of their clicks from AI searches (aggregated) 3. Good solid technical SEO, good content with proper fact checking and high quality links have propelled growth and, without trying, their CITATION METRICS in AHREFS show strong growth. NO GEO playbook, no hacks, just good SEO. IF you have a good SEO agency, you'll achieve good AI citation growth naturally. #seo
- 22
- 23
@jbobbink ·
I analyzed who Google AI Mode actually cites. The antitrust case just wrote itself. SE Ranking studied 68,313 keywords across 20 niches. They looked at 1.3 million citations inside Google's AI Mode answers. The finding that should make every SEO uncomfortable: Google(.)com appears as the source in 17.42% of all citations. Nearly one in five sources in AI Mode points back to Google itself. Add YouTube and it climbs to roughly 20%. Google is building an answer engine that treats its own properties as the most authoritative source on the internet. That is not a search engine. That is a closed loop. Here is where it gets worse. Ahrefs just published new data on AI Overviews using 863,000 keywords and 4 million URLs. In July 2025, 76% of pages cited in AI Overviews ranked in the top 10 organic results. By early 2026 that number dropped to 38%. Cut in half in eight months So Google is simultaneously citing itself more and citing top-ranking pages less. If you built your entire strategy around ranking on page one to earn AI visibility, that bet just collapsed. The timing is not a coincidence. Google upgraded AI Overviews to Gemini 3 globally on January 27. SE Ranking found that Gemini 3 replaced about 42% of previously cited domains overnight. Your citations are not earned. They are rented. And Google just changed the landlord. Meanwhile, the European Publishers Council filed a formal antitrust complaint with the EU in February 2026. Their argument is simple. Google uses publisher content to generate AI answers, then cites itself instead of the publishers who created the original information. The numbers support the complaint perfectly. Separately, eMarketer found that fewer than 10% of sources cited in ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot rank in the top 10 organic results for the same query. BrightEdge research shows the overlap between top Google links and AI cited sources dropped from 70% to below 20%, currently at 17%. Traditional SEO rankings and AI visibility are becoming two completely different games. And in the AI game, Google gave itself home court advantage. This is not a ranking problem. This is a market structure problem. When the platform that controls 90% of search also controls the answer layer and cites itself as the primary source, the word for that is not optimization. The word is antitrust.
- 24
@jmoserr ·
I talk to 35 new companies every month about SEO and GEO. Almost all of them are making the same data mistake...and they're building 2026 budgets around it. They all say the same thing: "AI search leads are so much better." When I ask how they arrived at that conclusion, it's always the same story: They're comparing all of their Google organic traffic, for example 200k visits a month across every funnel stage, to AI search leads, which are almost exclusively bottom of funnel. Of course the AI leads convert better. You're comparing apples to burgers. Here's what actually happened over the last 12 months and why your data is sh**. CTR and traffic dropped massively for tons of keywords. Yet revenue from organic search stayed flat. Why? Because most of what you were ranking for was vanity top-of-funnel junk that never moved the needle. Broad, informational keywords now eaten up by AI overviews and LLMs. Zero-click searches (hat tip / coined by @amandanat!). You didn't lose revenue, just vanity traffic that never made a difference in the first place. Now look at AI search: Brands nearly only get mentioned when someone asks for a specific solution. "I run a small business and need payroll services, what's a good fit for a 10 employee company?" The LLM spits out 5-6 tools. That's it. That's the only time you show up. It's as bottom of funnel as it gets. So when you compare 200k monthly organic visits where maybe 2,000 are meaningfully contributing to revenue against a channel that is ONLY purchase-intent recommendations, what exactly are you measuring? Nothing useful. Without proper data filtering, you can't make this comparison. And if you're making resource allocation decisions without it, you're making a huge mistake. GEO and SEO are not the same when it comes to data, intent, and usage. Stop treating their numbers like they're interchangeable.
- 25
- 26
@immarkwilliam ·
Your customer is starting to shop differently. They're not Googling anymore. They're asking ChatGPT, Perplexity, Grok. "What's the best [product] for [problem]?" And if your product data isn't structured clearly enough for an AI to read, parse, and recommend - you don't exist in that conversation. SEO took years to figure out. GEO is happening right now. The brands building for it today are the ones that get recommended tomorrow. Everyone else is invisible to a buyer segment that's growing every month.
- 27
@peec_ai ·
After tracking 232,000 citations across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Copilot, and Gemini over 12 weeks, we asked ourselves one question: -> Are platforms getting better at filtering self-promotional listicles? You want the simple answer? No. ~11% of citations still come from brands ranking themselves #1 on their own blog. Hasn't moved in 12 weeks... ChatGPT is the outlier at 3.6% (Google AI Mode and Perplexity are both around 10%). Full research in the comments as always 👇
- 28
@RoundtableSpace ·
STOP PROMPTING AI TO FIX ITS OWN SEO CONTENT, BUILD A LOOP THAT MAKES IT EARN THE PASS INSTEAD A builder model writes the first draft, a separate adversarial judge lists every weakness and the article keeps looping until it scores at least 90%. Then it publishes itself through the Netlify API and saves every round inside an Obsidian memory vault. The website grew from almost zero to 222 clicks a day and one article hit a 92/100 quality score while ranking number one in Google's AI Overview for "best AI community." What used to take an hour of manual review now takes about 5 minutes to set up.
Watch video
- 29
- 30
@BritneyMuller ·
The AI Search Gold Rush: What's Real vs What's Snake Oil? 🐍 @MiaRSato at The Verge wrote one of the most thorough pieces I've seen on what's actually happening in SEO + AI Search right now. Grateful to have been included. Most coverage hypes up AI or dismisses it. This stays neutral while going deep into research + educating the audience: → Those self-serving "best of" listicles gaming AI results? They're a search information retrieval problem, not an AI one. Google is working to clean them up. → Anyone claiming they can "influence AI" in guaranteed ways is selling you something. The AI and Search companies themselves are still figuring this out, we all are. → Third-party mentions, even without a link, are becoming more influential than ever. Gartner predicts PR + earned media budgets will double by 2027 specifically because of this shift. → Traditional SEO and AI visibility are still correlated. The brands showing up in AI aren't abandoning the basics; they're nailing & expanding upon them. → @randfish makes the powerful point that AI search is getting 10-100x more attention than the actual usage warrants. Traditional search still dominates desktop. @sparkto data also shows Amazon, Bing, and YouTube each drive more search activity than ChatGPT on desktop right now. The full piece is worth your time; Mia also digs into what's actually working for retailers tracking AI visibility, and the OpenAI ads backlash section is wild!! Link below 👇
- 31
@aleyda ·
🚨 The Latest Search Updates from #SEOFOMO 👇 * Google is launching UCP, a new open standard for agentic commerce and AI tools UCP will soon power a new checkout feature on eligible Google product listings in AI Mode in Search and the Gemini app, allowing shoppers to check out from eligible U.S. retailers right as they’re researching on Google. * OpenAI introduces ChatGPT Health: Designed to support, not replace, medical care * Google Gemini Gains Share As ChatGPT Declines In Similarweb Data * Google’s Mueller Weighs In On SEO vs GEO Debate * 2026 News SEO Trends & Predictions: Insights From 20 Global Experts On What’s Next * How Do Technical SEO Factors Impact AI Search? [Study] * Query Fan-Out in Practice: Turning One Search into an Omnimedia Content Plan * The Hidden Authority Signal: Why Your CC Rank May Matter More for AI Visibility * Much more! From specialists like @JShehata @glenngabe @5le @_nitman, and more. Along with jobs, events, tools ... Check it out: https://t.co/SgcN0ZoZmV
- 32
@yusukelp ·
I started dogfooding AI visibility for LandingBoost. Perplexity already cited it once. Now I’m trying to make it repeatable across ChatGPT / Google AI / search. The loop: - find real landing page audit queries - improve pages / FAQ / schema - test AI answers - track what gets indexed, cited, or ignored - join relevant Reddit conversations Tiny signals so far: - the new AI landing page audit tools page started getting visitors - Google Search Console is showing more impressions - after ~1 useful Reddit comment/day, I got my first Reddit visitor lol Not a win yet. But the loop is finally visible in the data. If this works, the next post will be: “I got LandingBoost mentioned by ChatGPT/Google AI. Here’s exactly what I changed.”
- 33
@gaetano_nyc ·
This keeps coming up. The next 6-12 months might very well be the next "golden era" for SEO/GEO agencies and consultants who are actually approaching their work in an honest and transparent manner. So many prospects want the following: 1. Guaranteed outcomes. 2. Ranking positions. 3. More traffic. 4. Prompt volumes. 5. "Exactness" on measurement. 6. SEO attribution. 7. Scaled content. 8. Reddit GEO. 9. Brand mentions for GEO. etc. And there's a vast ocean of GEO grifters hungry and ready to "fulfill" these desires. But these clients are going to be left with disappointment once they realize they've been sold hot air in the desert. So that's going to trigger a VIOLENT boomerang of cleanup work from disappointed companies who were sold empty promises from GEO grifters.
- 34
@semrush ·
AI engines don’t treat visibility the same way. Gemini surfaces brands in most answers (83.7%) but rarely cites sources (21.4%). ChatGPT flips the pattern, with strong citation use (87%) but fewer brand mentions (20.7%). Google AI Overviews and AI Mode land in the middle, blending both behaviors with a clear citation bias. Bottom line: visibility in one AI engine doesn’t carry over to another. Each system rewards different signals, formats, and sources – and you have to optimize for each one separately. https://t.co/FPRotiSJfY.
- 35
@TheCoolestCool ·
The brands winning AI citations today didn’t start with “GEO.” They spent years: • Ranking for real queries • Earning reviews • Showing up on Reddit • Publishing on YouTube • Getting mentioned offsite AI is just rewarding past distribution. If you’re behind, start stacking presence now. https://t.co/en13EYsuK4
- 36
@glenngabe ·
Still publishing self-serving listicles? Google provided a comment to The Verge. Again, BEWARE. BTW, Mia said SEO industry... Uh, it's the GEO industry!! :) -> Can AI responses be influenced? The SEO industry is trying "Google spokesperson Jennifer Kutz said the company applies robust protections against common forms of manipulation in search and Gemini; Kutz noted the company is aware of the low-quality listicle content and that it works to combat that kind of abuse." https://t.co/30zohf0Rv8
- 37
@tiboel ·
One question I get more and more from people outside tech is: “How should we optimize our brand for LLMs?” The honest answer is: nobody really knows yet. Just like SEO, there won’t be a single GEO playbook. Every brand, every product and every model will be different. Here is what I currently believe: Just like SEO, start by creating unique, detailed, factual content about your products. Write to educate your customers first. GEO is unlikely to reward generic, AI-generated content. A common mistake is to build an FAQ around the questions you think people will ask ChatGPT. That’s probably too simplistic. LLMs don’t just retrieve answers—they build an understanding of your company from all the signals you provide. Use LLMs to optimize for LLMs. They are probably the best tools to tell you what information is missing, what is ambiguous, and how your content could be structured to be better understood by AI. Give LLMs a user manual. Don’t assume they’ll figure everything out. Explain how your site is organized, where the authoritative information lives, how products relate to each other, and how your content should be interpreted. Make your site easy for both humans and AI to navigate. Google spent 25 years building PageRank and link authority. LLMs don’t have an equivalent map of the web. Instead, they seem to rely on explicit signals of authority: trusted communities, social platforms, directories, expert content, documentation, and other well-established sources. Measure your GEO. Ask customers where they discovered you, monitor AI referrals, and use the new generation of GEO tracking tools as they emerge. This is just the beginning. The rules will change quickly as LLMs evolve and, more importantly, as they figure out how to monetize discovery. My guess is that LLM monetization will look much closer to Google’s SEO/SEM model than most people expect. If that’s true, improving your organic GEO today will likely reduce what you’ll have to pay tomorrow. Curious to hear what others are seeing. What would you add?
- 38
@jakezward ·
GPT-5 has made SEO indispensable. Here’s how: 1. GPT-5 isn’t built to memorise the world’s knowledge. OpenAI deliberately designed it to be a reasoning engine, a brain on top of tools. Instead of hoarding facts, it retrieves them in real time. 2. Grounding is everything. Nick Turley from OpenAI put it best: “The right product is LLMs connected to ground truth, and that’s why we brought search to ChatGPT and I think that makes a huge difference.” Without grounding, GPT-5 is virtually useless. 3. That is where SEO comes in. If your content isn’t discoverable, optimised, and credible, GPT-5 (along with every other LLM) can’t use it. SEO is the oxygen. GPT-5 is the brain. The brain (reasoning engine) can think, but without oxygen (SEO content), it can’t survive. Grounding is the lungs, pulling in air (information) in real time. But the quality of that information depends on SEO. GPT-5 has made traditional SEO the foundation of AI search. And I think this will always be the case. What do you think?
- 39
- 40
- 41
@victor_bigfield ·
here's proof that seo isn't dead and it helps you rank in chatgpt i tested it on chatgpt for this query: tool find lead on reddit and my latest blog post already ranks in chatgpt (see source) also i noticed that for the same query if i ask it multiple times i don't always get the same answers so publishing articles still works in 2026
- 42
- 43
@donnellycss ·
If you want to get cited by ChatGPT, stop writing for humans. ChatGPT isn't citing sources that are easy to read or have a good narrative flow. There's a science to each one, and they're engineered. The reality is that most content gets ignored because it isn’t built for machine extraction. To get ranked, you need to use: Clear titles Definitions Question-based headers FAQs Original data Strong bylines Clean tables/charts. Each of these signals autority to the algorithm. So if you're not getting cited right now, you're probably missing a few of the signals that AI is actively scanning for...
- 44
- 45
@sharyph_ ·
60% of Google searches now end without a click. Read that again. People search. AI gives them the answer. They never visit your site. Most content creators are panicking about this. I'm doubling down. Here's why: If AI is answering questions with your content, you're winning. Getting cited by ChatGPT or Perplexity is the new featured snippet. It's digital authority on steroids. Only 11% of websites get cited by both ChatGPT and Perplexity. That's not a problem. That's an opportunity for early movers. The shift isn't "make content AI can't steal." It's "make content AI wants to cite." How? → Clear question →answer structure → Original data and proprietary insights → Specific details over generic advice → Short paragraphs (60-100 words max) → Semantic variation over keyword stuffing I tested this on 12 posts. 3 are now cited regularly by AI models. Those same 3 rank on page 1 of Google. Here's the insight no one's saying: Content optimized for AI also wins in traditional search. Because Google's algorithm is becoming more AI-like. It's looking for: → Clear answers → Natural language → Semantic relevance → Structured information The creators who figure out AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) in 2025 will dominate discovery for the next 5 years. Everyone else will still be chasing SEO tactics from 2019. By 2026, 25% of search volume shifts to AI chatbots. You can complain about it. Or you can get cited by it. Your move.
- 46
@sharyph_ ·
I checked my newsletter analytics last week. 18,000+ subscribers. Less than 2% of traffic from search. That's when it hit me: I'm optimizing for the wrong audience. Every week I write. I refine my hooks. I craft CTAs. But only my existing subscribers see it. Once it's published, it disappears into archives. Meanwhile, people are searching for exactly what I teach...and my content isn't showing up. Here's what I learned: There are two discovery engines fighting for attention: → Traditional search (Google, Bing) → AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini) Most newsletter writers optimize for neither. The fix isn't writing more. It's making what you already write discoverable. Substack gives you Domain Authority 78 for free. That's the same authority as most established media companies. Your posts can rank within hours of publishing. But only if you structure them correctly. I tested this framework on my last 12 posts: → Question-based H2 headings → 50-80 word answer capsules → Semantic keyword integration → Strategic internal linking Result: 3 posts now rank on page 1. AI models started citing my work in responses. Your newsletter isn't just content. It's a search asset working 24/7...if you let it. Most creators are sitting on months of valuable content that could be generating leads right now. They just need to make it discoverable. Stop asking "should I write more?" Start asking "how do I make my content work harder?"
- 47
@kristakdoyle ·
Citations are great, yes, but the real unlock for Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn etc with AEO is being so consistently present and helpful there that you become the actual training data over time. Growing citations is a natural byproduct of that and you’ll see results pretty quickly, but you really want to be influencing and measuring direct traffic, AI mention rate, and sentiment. These platforms are community/social/brandom principles first and foremost, AEO results are the byproduct.
- 48
@donnellycss ·
Brands have seen +200% AI traffic in under 30 days… If you want to win search in 2026, you need to understand how it’s changing. Here are the five main types… SEO Google rankings via keywords & backlinks. It’s slow, competitive, but still very powerful. To rank target high-intent keyword clusters + refresh old posts. GEO Getting cited by ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini. Right now, there’s an early mover advantage. To rank use entity-rich pages, clear FAQs, tables, and forums. AEO Winning zero-click answers & snippets. There are fewer clicks but more authority To rank answer questions in 40–60 words and use schema. AIO This is how AI understands your brand. Builds trust with AI tools and is good for long-term brand recall. To rank, use consistent structured content on trusted sites. SXO Turning traffic into revenue. This is where money is made. To rank, have a fast site, mobile UX, and clear CTAs. These will decide if your brand is found or forgotten in 2026. Which one are you optimising for right now? 👇
- 49
- 50
Best Tweets by Topic