Generative Engine Optimization, done properly.
Generative engines don’t rank pages — they assemble answers from sources they trust. GEO is the work of becoming one of those sources: retrievable, quotable and factually specific enough to survive summarisation.
Retrievable, quotable, verifiable.
Three properties, in that order.
Six levers that move generative answers.
Ranked by how often they are the blocking issue.
Crawler access
robots.txt, headers, WAF and CDN rules audited per generative crawler rather than in aggregate.
Facts in the HTML
Critical copy moved into the initial HTML, because generative crawlers rarely execute JavaScript.
Quotable phrasing
Claims rewritten as short, self-contained statements that survive being lifted out of context.
Entity and schema layer
Organization, Product and FAQ markup so the engine knows what you are, not just what you said.
Comparison coverage
The head-to-head and alternatives content that generative answers lean on most heavily.
Continuous measurement
Mention share, citation share and displacement tracked across five engines every week.
What actually changes.
Most SEO fundamentals still apply. The objective does not.
Five generative surfaces we optimise for.
Each one retrieves and cites differently.
About GEO.
No, though it inherits from it. SEO optimises for a ranked list; GEO optimises for inclusion in a synthesised answer. The technical overlap is real, the success metric is not.
They are used interchangeably by most teams. GEO tends to emphasise generative synthesis, AEO the answer itself. We treat them as one discipline.
Technical and factual fixes are picked up in days. Competitive prompts usually take six to ten weeks.
No. Search traffic still converts. GEO adds a second channel with different rules rather than replacing the first.
Every scan stores the full answer text with a timestamp, so any movement can be read rather than inferred.
Get your GEO score.
Free, no account, and it tells you which of the six levers is actually blocking you.