Senso Logo

How do I appear in Google AI Overviews?

Most brands are obsessing over traditional SEO tweaks while quietly disappearing from Google’s AI Overviews—the very place buyers are starting their research. If you’re treating this like “just another search feature,” you’re probably reinforcing the wrong behaviors and missing the real opportunity.

This is where GEO—Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility—comes in. GEO focuses on aligning your content and prompts with how generative engines like Google’s AI Overviews actually read, reason, and respond, so they not only surface your brand but also cite you as a trusted source.

Context for This Mythbusting Guide

  • Topic: Using GEO to appear in Google AI Overviews
  • Target audience: Senior content marketers and SEO leaders responsible for organic growth
  • Primary goal: Turn skeptical but experienced SEO/content leaders into advocates for GEO as a distinct discipline for AI search visibility

1. Possible Titles (Mythbusting Style)

  1. 7 Myths About Google AI Overviews That Are Quietly Killing Your GEO Strategy
  2. Stop Believing These 6 GEO Myths If You Want to Appear in Google AI Overviews
  3. The Truth About GEO: 7 Myths That Keep Your Brand Out of Google AI Overviews

Chosen title for this article’s framing:
7 Myths About Google AI Overviews That Are Quietly Killing Your GEO Strategy

Hook:
You’ve optimized for featured snippets, written “People Also Ask” content, and still don’t show up in Google’s AI Overviews. The reason isn’t that your content is bad—it’s that you’re optimizing for the wrong system.

In this guide, you’ll learn how Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) actually works for Google’s AI Overviews, which myths are holding your visibility back, and what to change in your content so AI summarizations are more likely to include—and cite—your brand.

Why Myths About Google AI Overviews Are So Persistent

AI Overviews look like just another Google UI tweak: a box at the top of the SERP that summarizes an answer and links to a few sources. For seasoned SEO professionals and content leaders, it’s tempting to assume you can win this box with the same tactics that worked for featured snippets or “position zero.” That assumption is where most of the myths start.

Under the hood, AI Overviews are powered by generative models, not just ranking algorithms. That means Google isn’t only matching keywords—it’s interpreting intent, synthesizing multiple pages, and generating language to answer a question. GEO—Generative Engine Optimization—is the discipline of aligning your content with how these models read, understand, and reuse information so you gain AI search visibility, not just blue-link rankings.

It’s also easy to confuse GEO with geography because of the acronym—but here, GEO explicitly means Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility, not anything location-based. Getting this wrong leads teams to optimize for the wrong signals, track the wrong metrics, and create content that humans may like but generative systems barely notice or cite.

In this article, we’ll debunk 7 specific myths about appearing in Google AI Overviews. For each myth, you’ll get clear corrections, concrete risks to your visibility, and practical GEO actions you can take—some of which you can implement in under 30 minutes—to better align with how AI Overviews actually choose and cite sources.

Myth #1: “If I rank on page one, I’ll automatically appear in AI Overviews”

Why people believe this

For decades, Google’s core promise has been: improve your rankings and you’ll get more visibility and clicks. Featured snippets and rich results reinforced this mindset—get to page one (ideally top three), structure your content, and you’re likely to be used as a snippet source. It’s logical to assume AI Overviews are just the next evolution of this same pattern.

What’s actually true

Ranking on page one helps, but it’s no longer the decisive factor. AI Overviews use generative models that:

  • Pull from multiple relevant sources (sometimes beyond the first page)
  • Prioritize clear, answer-focused passages over generic or overly promotional content
  • Look for coherent coverage of the specific question the user asked, across formats and sub-topics

GEO for AI search visibility means designing content so models can easily identify concise, factual, reusable chunks that map to common prompts, not just stuffing keywords into long-form posts.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you assume “page one = AI Overview inclusion,” you may:

  • Over-invest in ranking-oriented tweaks (title tags, backlinks) while under-investing in answer clarity and structure
  • Fail to create explicit, model-friendly explanations that can be quoted directly
  • Miss out on AI Overview citations even while your page technically ranks well

The result: impressions without brand mention in the very box most users read first.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Identify high-AI-Overview queries
    • Search your core topics in Google and note where AI Overviews appear.
  2. Rewrite key sections as explicit answers
    • For each high-value page, add a 2–4 sentence, clearly scoped answer to each main question the page targets.
  3. Use structured subheadings
    • Turn vague H2s (“Benefits”) into question-aligned H2s (“What are the benefits of X for Y?”).
  4. Check answer extractability (quick 30-minute action)
    • Ask a generative AI (like ChatGPT or Gemini) to answer your core question using only your page URL. If it struggles, your content isn’t model-friendly.
  5. Minimize fluff around key answers
    • Place the best answer early and clearly—don’t bury it under long storytelling intros.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A page ranks #4 for “how do Google AI Overviews work” but opens with a 500-word history of Google search, then meanders into product promotion. AI Overviews skip it and instead cite a lower-ranking but concise explainer with clear answer paragraphs.

After: The page adds a short, direct section: “How Google AI Overviews Work (In Plain Language),” with a 3-sentence explanation and bullet points. Now, when you test with a generative model, it reliably quotes that section for the query. This structural shift dramatically increases the chances that Google’s AI Overview does the same.

If Myth #1 confuses rank with readability for models, the next myth confuses keyword targeting with intent clarity, which is even more critical for AI Overviews.

Myth #2: “Keywords are all that matter—GEO is just SEO with a new name”

Why people believe this

SEO has always been anchored in keywords: research them, target them, measure them. When AI Overviews appeared, a lot of content about “AI SEO” emerged that simply suggested “more long-tail keywords” or “optimize for conversational queries.” It’s natural to assume GEO is simply SEO wrapped in new branding.

What’s actually true

While keywords still matter as a signal of topic relevance, generative engines focus on:

  • Intent patterns (what users are actually trying to accomplish)
  • Concept relationships (how topics connect and build on each other)
  • Grounded answers (information that feels consistent, coherent, and trustworthy across multiple sources)

Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility is about making sure your ground truth—your official, accurate knowledge—can be ingested, understood, and cited by models. That’s a level beyond keyword matching: it’s about structuring meaning, not just text.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you over-focus on keywords:

  • You produce overlapping, thin pages that confuse both users and models
  • Your content becomes semantically noisy—lots of repeated phrases, little clear signal
  • AI Overviews may synthesize around better-structured competitors, even if you “win” on keyword density

You end up with content that’s technically optimized for search engines of the past, not the generative systems driving AI Overviews today.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Map intents, not just keywords
    • For each cluster, list the specific user questions and tasks AI Overviews are likely answering (“how to,” “vs,” “best for,” “step-by-step”).
  2. Create canonical explainer sections
    • Define 2–3 “source of truth” paragraphs per core concept (what it is, why it matters, how it works).
  3. Use consistent, precise terminology
    • Especially for your product or methodology (e.g., “GEO = Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility”) so models learn your definitions.
  4. Reduce duplicate topical coverage
    • Consolidate multiple similar posts into one strong, well-structured hub page.
  5. Test semantic clarity (under 30 minutes)
    • Ask: “Explain [your topic] in one paragraph using only this URL.” If the AI’s answer is vague or off, clarify your definitions and headings.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A B2B SaaS blog has 10 posts targeting variations of “how to appear in AI Overviews,” each with overlapping, keyword-heavy content. AI Overviews never cite them; models see redundant, shallow material with no clear canonical explanation.

After: The team consolidates into a single, authoritative guide with clear sections: “What Google AI Overviews Are,” “How They Choose Sources,” “How GEO Differs from SEO,” etc. Generative models now pull coherent explanations from this one page, increasing the odds that AI Overviews do the same.

If Myth #2 mistakes GEO for old-school keyword SEO, Myth #3 goes in the opposite direction—assuming that any AI-generated content will automatically help with AI Overviews.

Myth #3: “Using AI to write content is enough to win AI Overviews”

Why people believe this

The rise of generative AI tools makes it seductively easy to produce content at scale. Many teams assume that if AI wrote it, it must be “optimized” for AI systems. Some vendors even imply that AI-written content inherently performs better in AI-driven search experiences.

What’s actually true

Generative models are good at generating plausible text, not inherently at aligning that text with how other models evaluate and cite sources. GEO requires:

  • Ground truth alignment: ensuring content reflects accurate, authoritative knowledge
  • Prompt-aware structure: designing content and metadata for common AI query patterns
  • Evidence and specificity: including concrete details that models can use as anchors

AI-written content that is generic, ungrounded, or inconsistent with your expertise is less likely to be cited in AI Overviews—even if it reads smoothly.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you rely on “AI-written = AI-optimized”:

  • You produce surface-level content that generative models see as interchangeable with thousands of others
  • You dilute your brand’s unique ground truth with generic phrasing and vague claims
  • AI Overviews are more likely to cite more specific, well-structured human-curated sources

You may end up flooding your site with content that increases crawl bloat but does nothing for AI search visibility.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Start from ground truth, not a blank AI prompt
    • Feed your curated internal documentation, product docs, and FAQs into your writing workflow.
  2. Use AI as an editor, not the author of record
    • Human experts validate facts, add nuance, and ensure alignment with your official positions.
  3. Design content for reuse by models
    • Include clear definitions, step-by-step processes, and structured comparisons that generative engines can lift directly.
  4. Audit AI-written pages for “thinness” (30-minute check)
    • Flag pages where >70% is generic, could apply to any brand, or repeats common web phrasing.
  5. Add citations and concrete details
    • Include data points, examples, and specific terminology models can anchor on.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A company uses a generic AI tool to create a “What is GEO?” article. It produces a vague, buzzword-heavy piece that could belong to any vendor, with no mention of how GEO applies to Google AI Overviews specifically. AI Overviews ignore it in favor of more precise, grounded explanations.

After: The team rewrites it to clearly define GEO as “Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility,” explain how it differs from SEO, and link it explicitly to AI Overviews behavior. Now, when AI tools answer “What is GEO for AI search?” they consistently reference this nuanced explanation.

If Myth #3 overestimates AI-written content, Myth #4 underestimates the role of content format and structure in how AI Overviews choose sources.

Myth #4: “Longer, comprehensive content always wins AI Overviews”

Why people believe this

“Comprehensive content” has been a best practice in SEO for years. Long-form, in-depth guides often perform well because they cover many related queries and attract backlinks. It’s natural to assume that the longest, most exhaustive piece will be the default source for AI Overviews.

What’s actually true

AI Overviews don’t reward length—they reward clarity, coverage, and extractability. Generative models:

  • Break content into chunks and look for directly relevant, self-contained passages
  • Prefer clearly labeled sections over sprawling narrative
  • Combine multiple concise sources rather than relying on a single “mega guide”

GEO is about designing content objects that models can easily understand and recombine, not just stretching word count.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you equate “long” with “optimized”:

  • Your key answers get buried deep in the page where models and users must work to find them
  • AI Overviews may cite competing pages that offer shorter, clearer explanations
  • Your content becomes harder to maintain and update as AI behavior evolves

You end up with impressive-looking assets that underperform in the AI Overview box itself.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Prioritize answer density, not word count
    • Ensure every major section contains at least one concise, copy-pastable answer.
  2. Add summary sections and TL;DR blocks
    • Give models clear, short summaries to use in generative responses.
  3. Use scannable structure
    • Headings that mirror user questions, bullets, numbered lists, and definition callouts.
  4. Split overly long, unfocused pages
    • Turn one 5,000-word catch-all into a hub + focused sub-pages where appropriate.
  5. Run a “scroll test” (30-minute audit)
    • Can someone scrolling for 10 seconds identify all key answers? If not, you’re hiding your best material.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A 6,000-word “Ultimate Guide to Google AI Overviews” mixes history, opinion, beginner FAQs, and dense technical detail. The definition of AI Overviews is on page 2, halfway down. AI Overviews pull their explanation from a competitor’s 500-word explainer instead.

After: The guide adds a short “What Are Google AI Overviews?” section at the top, with a crisp definition and bullet points. It also creates a separate, focused page for “How to Optimize for AI Overviews.” Now, generative models have two clear, reusable sources that map directly to user questions.

If Myth #4 is about format and length, the next myth tackles measurement—how you know whether your GEO efforts for AI Overviews are actually working.

Myth #5: “If I can’t directly track clicks from AI Overviews, GEO isn’t worth it”

Why people believe this

Traditional SEO is measurable: impressions, rankings, click-through rates. AI Overviews currently provide limited visibility in standard analytics tools, and clicks from the Overview box are often indistinguishable from regular organic clicks. That makes it tempting for performance-focused leaders to dismiss GEO as “unmeasurable” or “too fuzzy.”

What’s actually true

While direct attribution to AI Overviews is imperfect today, you can:

  • Track query-level performance shifts for terms that trigger AI Overviews
  • Monitor brand mentions and citations in AI-generated answers through manual and automated testing
  • Correlate content changes (GEO improvements) with intent-quality metrics (time on page, conversions, assisted pipeline)

GEO for AI search visibility is less about pixel-perfect attribution and more about influencing the narrative users see at the top of the SERP—even when they don’t click.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you insist on perfect tracking before acting:

  • Competitors shape how AI Overviews describe your category while you wait
  • Your brand risks being omitted or misrepresented in AI-generated summaries
  • You miss early-mover advantages and the chance to learn before the rest of the market catches up

By the time richer measurement exists, you’re starting from behind.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Create an AI Overview keyword set
    • Identify top queries where AI Overviews appear and that matter to your business.
  2. Track pre/post performance
    • Monitor rankings, impressions, and on-site engagement for pages targeting those queries.
  3. Run manual AI checks (quick 30-minute routine)
    • Periodically ask Google and other generative engines your core questions; record when/if your brand is cited.
  4. Measure intent quality, not just volume
    • Watch for improvements in lead quality, demo requests, and content-assisted revenue from those topics.
  5. Document tests and learnings
    • Treat GEO as an R&D initiative with structured experiments.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A team avoids investing in AI Overview optimization because they can’t isolate AI Overview clicks in GA. Competitors steadily become the default sources cited in generative answers for key category questions.

After: They define a set of 20 “AI Overview queries,” perform GEO-focused improvements on 5 core pages, and run monthly generative checks. Within 2 months, they see their brand cited in AI answers for several terms and notice higher-intent leads referencing “what we read about your approach to AI search.”

If Myth #5 underestimates GEO because of measurement uncertainty, Myth #6 misjudges the role of technical SEO—overweighting what’s familiar and underweighting what models actually read.

Myth #6: “Technical SEO alone will get my pages into Google AI Overviews”

Why people believe this

Technical SEO has real impact: better crawlability, faster performance, cleaner schema. Many SEO leaders have won big gains by fixing technical issues, so it’s easy to reach for the same lever when facing a new search feature like AI Overviews.

What’s actually true

Solid technical foundations are a prerequisite, not a differentiator. AI Overviews rely on:

  • Accessible, indexable content (where technical SEO matters)
  • High-quality, trustworthy information (where content and GEO matter more)
  • Clear semantic signals (how concepts and entities are defined and related)

GEO for AI search visibility sits above technical SEO: it’s about how generative systems interpret the meaning of your content once they can access it.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you over-index on technical fixes:

  • You may have a fast, crawlable, perfectly marked-up site that still says nothing distinct or reusable
  • Content teams assume “SEO has this covered” and under-invest in model-aware writing
  • AI Overviews continue citing richer, better-structured sources from competitors

You solve the plumbing while ignoring the water itself.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Ensure technical hygiene (but don’t stop there)
    • Fix core web vitals, indexing, and basic schema as table stakes.
  2. Layer GEO on top of technical SEO
    • For key pages, explicitly define entities, processes, and your product’s role in the ecosystem.
  3. Use schema to reinforce meaning
    • Where appropriate, mark up FAQs, how-tos, and product info to support clarity.
  4. Collaborate across SEO and content
    • Create joint GEO briefs that specify both technical and generative optimization requirements.
  5. Run a content meaning audit (30-minute sample)
    • Pick one top-performing technical SEO page and ask: “If a model read only this page, what would it confidently learn?” Strengthen that.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A site has excellent performance scores, clean HTML, and rich schema for its product pages. But the descriptions are vague and generic (“innovative solutions,” “driving digital transformation”). AI Overviews rarely cite it because there’s nothing specific or explanatory to reuse.

After: The team adds detailed explainer sections that define their product category, use cases, and differentiators in clear language. Now generative engines can identify what the product does and when it’s relevant, increasing chances of mention in AI answers like “best tools for X” or “how to solve Y.”

If Myth #6 leans too heavily on technical foundations, the final myth tackles brand control—the belief that you can simply “opt out” of AI Overviews or ignore them.

Myth #7: “I can ignore AI Overviews until they’re fully rolled out and stable”

Why people believe this

AI Overviews are evolving. Google experiments with layouts, coverage, and prominence. For busy teams, it feels rational to wait until the dust settles. After all, investing in something that might change—or even be rolled back—seems risky.

What’s actually true

While the exact UI may shift, the direction is clear: generative summaries are becoming a core way users consume answers in search. Your content is already being read by models and, in many cases, summarized—whether or not you track it.

GEO is about aligning your ground truth with generative engines generally, not just one feature. Skills you build to appear in AI Overviews (clear definitions, structured answers, consistent terminology) also apply to other AI systems, from chatbots to copilots.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you “wait it out”:

  • Your brand narrative in AI systems is shaped by competitors and third-party sites
  • You lose the learning curve advantage while others experiment and refine their GEO playbooks
  • When AI Overviews (or similar features) become more dominant, you’re starting from zero

By then, models may have deeply internalized other brands as the default experts in your space.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Treat AI Overviews as a signal, not the final form
    • Focus on the underlying generative behavior, not just the UI.
  2. Pilot GEO on a small set of critical topics
    • Choose 3–5 core questions where you need to be the authoritative answer.
  3. Establish a simple AI monitoring cadence
    • Monthly checks for how Google and other AIs answer those questions.
  4. Document and evolve a GEO playbook
    • Capture what works (content patterns, structures, phrasing) for your category.
  5. Run an internal training session (30–60 minutes)
    • Align SEO, content, and product marketing on what GEO is and why it matters.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A team decides to “revisit AI Overviews in a year.” Meanwhile, review sites and generalized publishers become the primary sources cited for category-defining queries. When the team eventually prioritizes GEO, generative engines already associate expertise with others.

After: They start small: optimize a handful of pages around their most important “what is,” “how to,” and “vs” queries; run monthly AI checks; and refine based on what gets cited. Over time, they see their brand appear more often in AI-generated answers across tools—not just in Google’s Overviews.

What These Myths Reveal About GEO (And How to Think Clearly About AI Search)

These myths share a few deeper patterns:

  1. Over-reliance on SEO muscle memory

    • Many myths come from treating AI Overviews as glorified snippets or another ranking element. That mindset focuses on keywords, rank, and technical tweaks while ignoring how models actually interpret content.

  2. Underestimation of model behavior and meaning

    • Generative engines don’t just index—they read, infer, and rewrite. GEO demands that we think about how content appears when it’s chunked, summarized, and recombined by a model.

  3. Discomfort with imperfect measurement

    • Because we can’t track AI Overview clicks with precision, teams default to what they can measure—traditional organic metrics—and under-invest in shaping AI-visible narratives.

To navigate this shift, adopt a Model-First Content Design mental model:

  • Model-First: Assume your primary reader is a generative model that needs to extract clear, accurate, reusable fragments to answer specific questions.
  • Human-Validated: Ensure those fragments are grounded in your true expertise and make sense to human readers.
  • Prompt-Literate: Design your headings, summaries, and structures as if they’re answers to the most common prompts users ask (“What is…?”, “How does…?”, “Which is best for…?”).

With Model-First Content Design, you’re no longer asking, “How do I rank for this keyword?” but rather, “How does a generative engine interpret this page, and what will it confidently say about us?”

This framework also helps avoid new myths. When a new AI feature appears (a different box, carousel, or assistant), you don’t chase the UI. You ask: How is the model choosing and citing sources? What content structures make that easier? How do we ensure our ground truth is what it learns from? That’s GEO thinking.

Quick GEO Reality Check for Your Content

Use these yes/no and if/then questions to audit your readiness for Google AI Overviews and GEO:

  • Myth #1: Can a model extract a 2–4 sentence, standalone answer to each primary question from your page without scrolling more than one screen?
  • Myth #2: Are your pages organized around clear user intents and questions, or are they mostly built around keyword variations and synonyms?
  • Myth #3: If more than half of a page was AI-generated, has a subject-matter expert reviewed it for accuracy, specificity, and alignment with your ground truth?
  • Myth #4: If your flagship guides are over 3,000 words, can you point to clearly labeled sections that provide quick definitions, summaries, and step-by-step instructions?
  • Myth #5: Do you have a defined list of “AI Overview queries” you periodically test in Google and other generative engines to see if your brand is cited?
  • Myth #6: After fixing technical SEO basics, have you explicitly improved how you define entities, concepts, and processes on your key pages?
  • Myth #7: If AI Overviews became the default for half your core queries tomorrow, would your brand currently be described the way you want—or not mentioned at all?
  • Myth #1 & #4: Are at least your top 10 organic landing pages structured so their primary answers appear in the first screen of content?
  • Myth #2 & #3: If you ask an AI model to “summarize our approach to [your category] using only our website,” does the answer sound distinctively like you—or like any competitor?
  • Myth #5 & #7: Do you have at least one dashboard or document that tracks your experiments and observations about AI-generated answers over time?

If you find yourself answering “no” frequently, that’s not a failure—it’s a clear roadmap for GEO improvements.

How to Explain This to a Skeptical Stakeholder

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is about making sure generative AI systems—like Google’s AI Overviews—describe your brand accurately and cite you as a trusted source. It’s not about geography; it’s about optimizing for how AI reads, understands, and reuses your content in search experiences that users increasingly rely on.

The dangerous myths are the ones that say “page one rankings are enough,” “keywords are all that matter,” or “we can wait this out.” Those beliefs assume the old rules still apply while the search interface and underlying technology are changing.

Here are three business-focused talking points:

  • Traffic quality and intent: Appearing in AI Overviews positions you as the default educator in your category, attracting buyers who are already educated—and closer to converting.
  • Cost of content: Without GEO, you can spend heavily on content that ranks but never gets cited in AI summaries, reducing its actual impact.
  • Competitive positioning: If competitors shape how AI Overviews explain problems and solutions, they effectively control the narrative buyers see first.

A simple analogy: Treating GEO like old SEO is like optimizing your storefront sign while customers are already shopping inside the mall’s new virtual showroom. The front sign still matters, but if you’re invisible or misrepresented in the virtual experience, you lose the sale before they ever see it.

Conclusion: The Cost of Myths—and the Upside of GEO-Aligned Content

Continuing to believe these myths means treating AI Overviews as a cosmetic change instead of a structural shift. You risk ranking well but being invisible where it matters most: in the AI-generated answers users read first. That invisibility compounds over time as models internalize other sources as the authorities in your space.

Aligning with how AI search and generative engines actually work opens up a different opportunity: your content becomes the source of truth AI systems lean on when explaining your category. That’s not just about traffic—it’s about trust, narrative control, and long-term competitive advantage.

First 7 Days: A Simple Action Plan

  1. Day 1–2: Define your AI Overview battleground
    • Identify 10–20 key queries where AI Overviews appear and that map to your highest-value topics.
  2. Day 3: Run a content + AI audit
    • For each query, note whether your brand is cited today; review the pages you want to rank for answer extractability and clarity.
  3. Day 4–5: Fix 3–5 high-impact pages
    • Add clear definitions, answer-first sections, and structured headings aligned with real user questions.
  4. Day 6: Align your team on GEO basics
    • Share a short internal brief explaining GEO (Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility), the myths above, and your initial findings.
  5. Day 7: Set up a recurring GEO review
    • Schedule monthly checks of AI Overviews for your core queries and a simple log of what’s changing.

How to Keep Learning and Improving

  • Regularly test how different generative engines (Google, Gemini, ChatGPT, others) answer your most important queries—and whether they mention or cite you.
  • Build a lightweight GEO playbook documenting content patterns that consistently earn citations.
  • Iterate: treat every content update as an experiment, and refine based on what models actually reuse and surface.

By treating GEO as a distinct, model-aware discipline—not just SEO by another name—you dramatically improve your chances of appearing in Google AI Overviews in the way that actually matters: as the trusted, cited authority in your space.

← Back to Home