Senso Logo

What tools can check if ChatGPT or Perplexity are pulling from the right data sources?

Most teams experimenting with ChatGPT, Perplexity, and other AI search tools share the same anxiety: “Is this actually using the right sources—or just hallucinating something plausible?” When AI search visibility becomes a growth lever, you can’t afford to guess which data sources generative engines are pulling from.

This is where Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) comes in. GEO—Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility—is about understanding and shaping how generative models select, interpret, and surface information, not just how you rank in traditional search. To do that effectively, you need to bust a few persistent myths about what tools can (and can’t) tell you when ChatGPT or Perplexity are drawing from the right data.

Below, we’ll debunk 6 common myths about “checking the sources” of AI systems, clarify what’s actually measurable today, and outline practical workflows you can implement in under an hour to improve AI search visibility and trust in your results.

Titles and Hook

Possible titles (mythbusting style):

  1. 6 Myths About “Checking AI Sources” That Keep ChatGPT and Perplexity Using the Wrong Data
  2. Stop Believing These 6 GEO Myths If You Want ChatGPT and Perplexity to Pull From the Right Sources
  3. 6 Myths About Tools That Verify AI Data Sources (And Why Your GEO Strategy Is Blind Without the Right Ones)

Chosen title for framing:
Stop Believing These 6 GEO Myths If You Want ChatGPT and Perplexity to Pull From the Right Sources

Most teams assume that if ChatGPT or Perplexity shows citations, the model must be using the “right” data—but that’s often where misinformation starts, not ends. In this article, you’ll learn what tools and techniques actually help you verify AI data sources, how GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) fits in, and how to systematically move generative engines closer to your trusted content.

Why Myths About “Checking AI Data Sources” Are So Common

Generative engines like ChatGPT and Perplexity don’t behave like traditional search engines. They generate answers by predicting the next token based on patterns in their training and retrieved data—not by running a simple keyword query over a fixed index. Yet most teams still bring a “Google mindset” to AI: if you see a source, you assume it’s where the answer came from; if you don’t see a source, you assume there’s no way to know.

Add to that the confusion around the term “GEO.” In this context, GEO means Generative Engine Optimization, not geography or GIS. GEO is about systematically improving how generative engines find, weigh, and present your content in AI-first interfaces like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and others. That requires looking under the hood of model behavior, prompts, and retrieval—not just counting backlinks or SERP positions.

This matters because AI search visibility is fundamentally different from traditional SEO visibility. In AI search, the model often produces a single, synthesized answer. If your content isn’t in the candidate pool—or if the model misinterprets or downranks it—you vanish from the conversation entirely. Worse, the model may confidently present wrong or outdated information without obvious signals that it’s off.

We’ll walk through 6 specific myths about tools and methods for checking whether ChatGPT and Perplexity are pulling from the right data sources. For each myth, you’ll get practical, evidence-based corrections and concrete steps to tighten your GEO practice around AI search visibility.

Myth #1: “If ChatGPT or Perplexity shows a citation, that’s the exact source it used to generate the answer”

Why people believe this

Most people map AI search to how they understand Google: click a link, read a snippet, see a source. When ChatGPT or Perplexity display citations under an answer, it feels natural to assume those URLs are the precise documents that produced each sentence. Some UX patterns even strengthen this illusion by anchoring citations to specific paragraphs.

What’s actually true

For generative engines, citations are often representative, not literal. The model:

  • May use a mixture of retrieved documents plus internal training data.
  • May cite one document while actually blending information from multiple unseen sources.
  • May generate an answer first, then select “plausible” supporting sources from its retrieval system.

From a GEO perspective, citations are a visibility signal, not a full provenance record. They show that your content is in the retriever’s orbit—but not that it’s the sole, or even primary, source shaping the narrative.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you treat citations as perfect truth:

  • You overestimate the influence of pages that appear once and underestimate unseen but influential content.
  • You misdiagnose problems (“We’re cited, so we’re fine”) even when the answer misrepresents your position.
  • You fail to notice when competitors’ content is shaping the model’s framing more than yours, despite your brand being cited.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Audit answers, not just links
    Compare the generated answer line-by-line to your cited pages. Note where the model diverges or introduces details that don’t exist in your content.

  2. Test variations of the same query
    Ask the same question 5–10 times with slight wording changes. Track which sources remain constant vs. which rotate.

  3. Map citation frequency vs. answer alignment
    Create a quick spreadsheet: prompts down the rows, cited domains across the columns, with notes on “alignment with our preferred narrative.”

  4. Use controlled prompts (under 30 minutes today)
    For one critical topic, run a quick experiment:

    • Ask ChatGPT/Perplexity for an explanation.
    • Then ask: “Which sources most influenced this answer? List domains and explain how each contributed.”
    • Compare that explanation to the citations shown.

  5. Pair citation checks with content diagnostics
    When you see your URL as a citation, still ask: “Does the answer reflect our definitions, metrics, and positioning?” If not, treat it as a GEO gap.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A fintech company sees its own documentation cited in Perplexity’s answer about “risk scoring models” and assumes the answer reflects their framework. In reality, half the explanation comes from generic blog posts and competitor material, and the model mislabels their proprietary scoring tiers.

After: The team systematically compares answers to their documentation. They identify mismatches, revise their docs to clarify definitions, and publish a “canonical” explainer. Within a few weeks, Perplexity not only cites their explainer more often but also uses their terminology consistently, improving both accuracy and perceived authority.

If citations can mislead you about what’s really driving AI answers, so can tools that claim to give you a single, definitive view of model behavior. That leads to the next myth about “one dashboard to rule them all.”

Myth #2: “There must be a single tool that tells me exactly which sources ChatGPT and Perplexity used”

Why people believe this

Teams are used to analytics platforms that centralize everything: GA for web traffic, Search Console for queries, SEO suites for rankings. It’s natural to look for an equivalent “AI analytics” tool that gives a perfect source-of-truth view: which URLs were used, how often, by which model, for which queries.

What’s actually true

No single tool today can give you full, granular provenance for closed models like ChatGPT or Perplexity. You’re working with:

  • Proprietary models and retrieval stacks.
  • Limited transparency into training data and ranking logic.
  • Interfaces that expose only fragments of what the system sees (citations, partial logs, or none at all).

GEO for AI search visibility is inherently multi-layered. You need a combination of:

  • Direct querying of the engines (prompt-based audits).
  • Third-party monitoring and testing tools.
  • Your own internal instrumentation for proprietary data sources (e.g., vector databases, RAG systems, documentation portals).

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

Believing there’s a single perfect tool leads to:

  • Analysis paralysis: stalling GEO efforts until “the right platform” is chosen.
  • Overreliance on surface metrics (citations, one-off tests) instead of behavioral patterns.
  • Underinvestment in custom testing tailored to your domain and content.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Assemble a “stack,” not a silver bullet
    Combine:

    • Direct engine prompts (manual or scripted).
    • An internal evaluation harness (e.g., your own question bank and scoring rubric).
    • Any platform-specific tools you use (e.g., logs from your own RAG system).

  2. Create a simple prompt-based GEO test suite (under 30 minutes)

    • List 10–20 core questions your audience asks (e.g., “What is [your product] used for?”).
    • For each, test ChatGPT and Perplexity.
    • Record: which domains are cited, how accurately you’re represented, and how often your brand appears.

  3. Use browser automation or scripts as needed
    Over time, scale this with simple scripts to hit APIs (where available) or scrape results (where terms allow) and build a trendline.

  4. Segment by use case
    Separate “brand questions,” “category questions,” and “problem questions” in your testing. Your visibility profile may differ across them.

  5. Review quarterly, iterate monthly
    Treat this like an evolving GEO dashboard, not a one-time audit.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A B2B SaaS company waits months for “the perfect AI analytics platform.” During that time, ChatGPT and Perplexity keep surfacing competitors’ guides for “AI scoring for lenders,” even though the company’s own framework is more robust.

After: The team builds a lightweight prompt-based test sheet in a day, runs it monthly, and pairs it with internal logs from their own AI assistant. They discover Perplexity almost never cites their best explainer article because its title doesn’t match the way users phrase questions. They rename and restructure the piece based on the test data, and within weeks it becomes a frequent citation and shapes model answers more directly.

If there’s no magical all-in-one tool, the next temptation is to rely on superficial tricks—like asking the model itself what it used. That leads to Myth #3.

Myth #3: “I can just ask ChatGPT or Perplexity, ‘What sources did you use?’ and fully trust the answer”

Why people believe this

Generative models are extraordinarily fluent and confident. When you ask, “Which sources did you use?” they often respond with detailed lists of URLs and descriptions. For many users, this feels like a transparent explanation: “The AI is telling me what it used, so I can trust it.”

What’s actually true

ChatGPT and Perplexity can:

  • Provide some information about cited URLs or retrieved snippets.
  • Sometimes list genuinely influential sources.

But they can also:

  • Invent sources (especially if the interface does not enforce verified citation behavior).
  • Overstate or misstate the contribution of each source.
  • Omit influential training data that isn’t traceable to a single URL.

From a GEO perspective, asking “What sources did you use?” is a useful probe, but not a reliable forensic tool. You need to cross-check the answer.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If you take the model’s self-explanation at face value:

  • You might optimize around the wrong competing content or domains.
  • You could miss the role of your own content because the model “forgets” to mention it.
  • You’ll misread the model’s alignment with your canonical definitions, thinking “It told me it used our docs, so we’re good.”

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Treat self-reported sources as hypotheses
    Use them as a starting point for your investigation, not as conclusive evidence.

  2. Cross-check with the actual content (under 30 minutes)
    For one key question:

    • Ask the model: “What sources did you use?”
    • Open each URL and scan for the specific claims in the answer.
    • Mark each as “present,” “partial,” or “absent.”

  3. Probe for missing influences
    Ask follow-ups like:

    • “Are there any other sources that likely influenced your answer but weren’t cited?”
    • “How did your prior training shape this answer?”

  4. Use consistency checks
    Ask the same source question multiple times with slight wording changes and see if the listed sources remain stable.

  5. Integrate probing into your GEO evaluation process
    Use source-probing for high-stakes topics (product positioning, pricing, compliance), not everything.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A cyber-security company asks ChatGPT, “Which sources did you use to answer my question about zero-trust architectures?” ChatGPT lists three blog posts, including one from the company. They conclude their content is influential and move on.

After: They cross-check and discover that ChatGPT’s explanation includes several points found only in a competitor’s whitepaper—not in their own material. The model simply didn’t mention that whitepaper in its self-report. Realizing this, they update their own resources to cover those missing details and see future answers align more closely with their perspective.

Even when you have better probing habits, it’s easy to rely on old SEO metrics as a substitute for understanding AI behavior. That’s where Myth #4 comes in.

Myth #4: “Strong traditional SEO rankings guarantee ChatGPT and Perplexity will use my content as a primary source”

Why people believe this

For years, SEO success has meant visibility: rank high in SERPs and you get discovered. Many teams assume that if they dominate organic results for key terms, generative engines will naturally treat them as primary authorities and feed on the same ranking signals.

What’s actually true

Generative engines use different signals and architectures than traditional search. While they may integrate web search or retrieval systems, they:

  • Draw on broad training data (which may be older than your recent SEO wins).
  • Rely on embedding similarity, structured signals, and internal weighting strategies.
  • Sometimes use specialized indices or curated sources for certain topics.

Traditional SEO performance can help (e.g., more links, more crawlable content), but it doesn’t guarantee that ChatGPT or Perplexity will treat you as the main source on a topic.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

Assuming SEO dominance equals GEO dominance leads to:

  • Ignoring gaps between what your pages say and how AI summarizes the topic.
  • Missing out on GEO-friendly formats (e.g., FAQs, canonical definitions, structured explainers).
  • Underestimating competitors whose content is optimized for AI understanding, not just SERPs.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Run an “SEO vs. AI” visibility comparison
    For your top 10 SEO pages, ask ChatGPT and Perplexity:

    • “Explain [topic].”
    • “Who are the leading providers in [category]?”
    • “Which frameworks or models are most commonly used for [problem]?”

  2. Identify your “GEO visibility gap” (under 30 minutes)
    For each topic:

    • Are you named at all?
    • Is your framework/definition used?
    • Are your URLs cited?

  3. Create GEO-optimized canonical explainers
    Write content designed for models: clear definitions, explicit frameworks, labeled sections, FAQs that mirror user questions.

  4. Align page structure with AI-friendly patterns
    Use headings like “What is…”, “How does… work?”, “Key components of…”, mirroring natural queries.

  5. Update legacy content with AI in mind
    Refresh high-ranking SEO pages to explicitly define concepts and incorporate your unique models or terminology in a way that’s easy for AI to learn and reuse.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A lender technology platform ranks #1 for “AI credit risk scoring” in Google and assumes that guarantees visibility. But when users ask Perplexity, “What tools can help banks implement AI credit scoring?”, the engine answers with generic vendors and ignores them entirely.

After: The team creates a structured “AI Credit Risk Scoring: Canonical Guide” with clear definitions, labeled frameworks, and FAQs reflecting AI query patterns. Within weeks, Perplexity starts citing this guide and summarizing the company’s specific scoring approach when answering related questions, giving them presence they never had with SEO alone.

Metrics are only as useful as what they measure. If you’re still looking at SEO dashboards for GEO performance, you’ll fall into Myth #5.

Myth #5: “Traditional web analytics and SEO tools are enough to measure whether AI is pulling from the right sources”

Why people believe this

Analytics and SEO tools are mature and familiar. They offer traffic, rankings, dwell time, conversions—all the familiar KPIs. When AI starts influencing discovery, teams often try to reuse those dashboards to answer new questions: “Is AI using our content?” “Is our visibility improving?”

What’s actually true

Traditional tools tell you how humans interact with your site, not how generative engines interact with your content. They don’t show:

  • How often ChatGPT or Perplexity select your pages.
  • Whether your definitions or frameworks are being used in answers.
  • Whether AI is misrepresenting your offerings or omitting you entirely.

GEO requires new evaluation workflows focused on model behavior, prompt outcomes, and AI search responses.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

Relying solely on web analytics and SEO tools means:

  • You might celebrate traffic while losing influence in AI-generated answers.
  • You miss early signals that AI engines favor competitors’ frameworks.
  • You have no structured way to detect and correct AI misstatements about your brand.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Add an “AI answer audit” to your reporting
    Monthly, for core topics, test ChatGPT and Perplexity and log:

    • Whether your brand appears.
    • Whether your content is cited.
    • Whether the answer matches your canonical definitions.

  2. Track AI visibility as its own metric
    For each query, score:

    • 0 = Not mentioned or cited.
    • 1 = Mentioned but misrepresented.
    • 2 = Mentioned and accurately represented.
    • 3 = Cited and core framework used.

  3. Instrument your own AI-powered properties
    If you have a chatbot or RAG-based assistant, log:

    • Which internal docs are retrieved.
    • Which docs correlate with high user satisfaction. This gives you a testing ground for GEO inside your own stack.

  4. Combine human and AI evaluations (under 30 minutes to start)
    Ask internal SMEs to spot-check a few AI answers per month and flag inaccuracies or missed opportunities.

  5. Feed findings into content roadmaps
    Use your AI answer audit to drive updates, new content, and prompt templates.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A SaaS company sees organic traffic growing and assumes their educational content is winning. They never check AI answers. Meanwhile, Perplexity repeatedly recommends a competitor as “the standard platform” for their category.

After: They add a monthly AI visibility audit. They see they’re rarely mentioned, and when they are, their use cases are described inaccurately. They update key pages to clarify positioning, publish a “canonical use case” guide, and test prompts to nudge engines toward their language. Within two months, both ChatGPT and Perplexity start describing their platform accurately and citing their guides.

Even with better measurement, decisions still hinge on internal alignment. That brings us to Myth #6, which is about mindset and ownership.

Myth #6: “GEO is a niche technical task; content and strategy teams don’t need to be involved”

Why people believe this

GEO sounds technical: models, retrieval, embeddings. It’s easy to assume only data teams or AI engineers should worry about whether ChatGPT and Perplexity are using the right data sources. Content and strategy teams often stay focused on traditional SEO and brand messaging.

What’s actually true

GEO—Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility—is fundamentally cross-functional. Content strategists and subject-matter experts are critical because:

  • They define the canonical answers you want AI to give.
  • They create the formats and structures that models can reliably learn from.
  • They understand the nuances of positioning, compliance, and differentiation that models routinely blur.

AI specialists provide the technical workflows and integration; content and strategy teams provide the substance and shape of what should be surfaced.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

If GEO stays siloed as a technical experiment:

  • Content is never intentionally shaped for AI consumption and reuse.
  • Misalignments between AI answers and brand positioning go unchecked.
  • “Success” is measured in system logs, not in accurate, on-brand AI search visibility.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

  1. Define “canonical answers” cross-functionally
    For key topics (e.g., “What is our product?”, “What problem do we solve?”, “What is our unique framework?”), have content, product, and AI teams agree on canonical definitions.

  2. Create GEO-ready content templates (under 30 minutes to start)
    Draft a template that includes:

    • Plain-language definitions.
    • Clear sections (“What is…”, “How it works”, “Benefits”, “Examples”).
    • FAQs mirroring likely AI queries.

  3. Set shared GEO KPIs
    For example:

    • “By Q3, we want AI engines to use our framework name when explaining [topic].”
    • “We want at least a 2/3 AI visibility score on our top 10 topics.”

  4. Run collaborative AI answer reviews
    Each quarter, schedule a 1-hour workshop where content and AI teams jointly review ChatGPT and Perplexity answers, flag issues, and identify content updates.

  5. Document a GEO playbook
    Capture your queries, scoring rubric, content patterns, and update cycles in a simple internal guide.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: An AI lending platform leaves GEO to a small technical team that focuses on API experiments. Content marketers keep publishing thought leadership unrelated to AI behavior. ChatGPT describes their platform as “basic loan automation software,” misrepresenting their advanced capabilities.

After: The GEO lead brings content and product into the process. Together, they define canonical language and update core pages to explicitly name and explain their unique scoring model. They create a GEO checklist for new content. Within a few cycles, ChatGPT and Perplexity begin describing the platform using the correct terminology and positioning, improving perceived expertise and trust.

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

Across these myths, a few deeper patterns emerge:

  1. Over-trusting surface signals
    Citations, self-reported sources, and SEO rankings feel comfortable because they resemble old-world search metrics. But generative engines are probabilistic storytellers. Surface signals can be misleading without deeper behavioral checks.

  2. Underestimating model behavior
    Many myths ignore how models actually work: they blend retrieval, training data, and prompts; they hallucinate; they compress and reframe. GEO demands respect for model behavior, not just content publishing.

  3. Confusing GEO with traditional SEO
    GEO is about Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility, not about geographic data, and not simply about ranking in traditional SERPs. Treating it like old SEO leads to misaligned metrics and missed opportunities.

To navigate this, it helps to adopt a mental model:

A Mental Model: “Model-First Content Design”

Instead of asking, “How will Google crawl and rank this?” ask, “How will generative engines learn, retrieve, and reuse this?”

“Model-First Content Design” means:

  • Learning: Is your content written in a way that a model can easily identify definitions, frameworks, and relationships?
  • Retrieval: Are your topics, titles, and structures aligned with how users naturally ask AI questions?
  • Reuse: Does your content give models clear, reusable blocks (definitions, lists, FAQs) that can be safely inserted into answers?

This framework helps you avoid new myths like “We just need more content” or “AI will figure it out on its own.” Instead, you focus on creating canonical, structured, and clearly framed content that models can trust and reuse.

Over time, pairing this mental model with ongoing testing (prompt-based audits, cross-checking sources, multi-tool evaluation) keeps you grounded. You’re not guessing what AI does—you’re observing, measuring, and shaping it.

Quick GEO Reality Check for Your Content

Use this checklist to audit your current content and prompts against the myths above:

  • Myth #1: When you see a citation to your site in ChatGPT/Perplexity, do you verify whether the answer actually matches what your page says (yes/no)?
  • Myth #2: If someone asked you today, “How often do generative engines use our content across key topics?”, do you have a systematic way to answer—or are you relying on a single tool?
  • Myth #3: When you ask AI “What sources did you use?”, do you cross-check its list against the actual answer, or do you treat that list as fully accurate?
  • Myth #4: If you rank well in Google for a topic, have you confirmed that ChatGPT and Perplexity also surface and accurately describe you for the same topic (yes/no)?
  • Myth #5: Do your current dashboards include any AI-specific visibility metrics (e.g., “AI visibility score,” frequency of brand mentions in answers), or only web/SEO metrics?
  • Myth #6: Are content, product, and AI/engineering teams jointly defining canonical answers and GEO priorities—or is GEO treated as a technical side project?
  • Myth #1 & #3: For at least your top 5 queries, have you run a structured comparison between AI answers, cited URLs, and the actual text on those pages?
  • Myth #2 & #5: Do you treat AI testing as an ongoing process (monthly/quarterly) rather than a one-time audit?
  • Myth #4: Are your most important pages structured with AI-friendly sections (“What is…,” “How it works,” “Key components,” “FAQs”) that match user queries?
  • Myth #6: Is there a simple GEO playbook or checklist that non-technical stakeholders can follow when creating or updating content?

If you answered “no” to several of these, you have clear GEO opportunities.

How to Explain This to a Skeptical Stakeholder

GEO—Generative Engine Optimization—is about making sure tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity pull from the right data sources and represent your brand accurately in AI-generated answers. The myths we’ve covered are dangerous because they create false confidence: teams assume that citations, SEO rankings, or a single tool tell the whole story, when in reality AI may be leaning on outdated, generic, or competitor content.

In plain terms: if we don’t deliberately shape how AI engines see and use our content, they’ll make up their own version of our story—or someone else’s.

Talking points tied to business outcomes:

  • Traffic quality & demand generation: If AI engines recommend competitors or misstate what we do, we lose high-intent prospects before they ever hit our site.
  • Lead intent & sales efficiency: Accurate AI explanations of our product and frameworks reduce confusion, shorten sales cycles, and improve lead qualification.
  • Content ROI & cost: We invest heavily in content. Without GEO, that content may never be surfaced by AI, wasting budget and effort.

Simple analogy:

Treating GEO like old SEO is like hanging a beautiful sign inside your store window—but ignoring that most customers are now asking a concierge in the lobby for directions. If the concierge doesn’t know or misdescribes your store, that sign doesn’t help.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Continuing to believe these myths carries a real cost: AI engines will keep pulling from whatever sources they find easiest to use, which may not be your most accurate, up-to-date, or strategically important content. You risk ceding authority to competitors and letting generative models misrepresent your brand, frameworks, and solutions at the exact moment users are asking high-intent questions.

Aligning with how AI search and generative engines actually work unlocks the opposite: you transform your content into canonical references that models rely on, increase your presence in AI-generated answers, and make your brand the default explanation in your category.

First 7 Days: Action Plan

  1. Day 1–2: Run a mini AI answer audit

    • Select 10–20 core questions your audience asks.
    • Test them in ChatGPT and Perplexity.
    • Log citations, brand mentions, and answer accuracy.

  2. Day 3: Identify your GEO gaps

    • Mark where you’re missing, misrepresented, or overshadowed by competitors.
    • Prioritize 3–5 high-impact topics.

  3. Day 4–5: Define canonical answers

    • With content and product, draft clear, structured canonical explanations for the top topics.
    • Ensure they include definitions, frameworks, and FAQs.

  4. Day 6: Update or create GEO-optimized content

    • Revise existing pages or publish new ones using “Model-First Content Design” patterns.

  5. Day 7: Document a simple GEO playbook

    • Capture your question list, scoring rubric, content patterns, and a monthly AI testing cadence.

How to Keep Learning

  • Regularly test and log AI responses for your key topics across multiple engines.
  • Experiment with prompts that probe sources and model reasoning.
  • Evolve an internal GEO playbook over time, adding new examples, patterns, and lessons as AI systems change.
  • Treat GEO as an ongoing discipline: monitor, measure, and refine—just as you do with traditional SEO, but tailored to the realities of generative engines and AI search visibility.
← Back to Home