u/Jxckwhlx

Hello

Je construis une boîte à côté, et il y a deux semaines j'ai monté un Discord de founders un peu sur un coup de tête, sans vraiment y croire. Franchement je pensais rassembler 20-30 potes qui buildent et basta.

En deux semaines on est passés à 200+ membres, sans budget ni pub. Et ce qui me surprend le plus, c'est pas le chiffre, c'est le mouvement : les gens se présentent, se répondent entre eux, se filent du feedback, partagent leurs galères sans que j'aie à animer en permanence.

Honnêtement je ne m'attendais pas à ça, et je crois que ça dit surtout un truc : il manquait vraiment un endroit comme ça côté français. Pas mal de gens m'ont écrit "je cherchais exactement ça depuis longtemps".

Autre surprise : la diversité. Je pensais rassembler des jeunes de la vingtaine comme moi, en fait il y a des gens de tous âges, y compris des founders de 50 ans et plus qui en sont à leur deuxième ou troisième boîte. Le mélange rend les échanges bien plus riches que prévu.

Pour être transparent : c'est gratuit, je ne gagne rien avec, rien à vendre. Je voulais juste être bien entouré pendant que je construis.

Ma vraie question à ceux qui ont déjà géré des communautés : comment vous tenez la rétention sur la durée ? C'est mon prochain défi, et j'aimerais éviter que ça retombe comme tant de serveurs après l'effet de nouveauté.

More and more buyers ask an AI assistant before they ask Google. If ChatGPT or Perplexity recommends a competitor on your category question, you never even enter the conversation. Here is a free way to audit and improve that yourself. No tool needed.

First, two things that matter and are not obvious:

AI assistants do not "rank" you like Google. There are two separate layers. One, the consideration set: does the model even retrieve and know you exist. Two, the evidence layer: which sources it leans on and what those sources say about you. You can lose at either layer.

Engines source differently. ChatGPT pulls from the live web (Bing index). Perplexity leans heavily on forums and Reddit plus the web. Gemini is tied to Google. So "being visible" is not one thing, it is per engine. Being strong on Reddit can win Perplexity and do nothing for someone else.

Now the 30 minute audit:

1. Write your 10 money prompts. The actual questions a buyer types, not your brand name. Things like "best X for Y", "alternatives to Z", "how do I do W". This list is the whole game.
2. Run each prompt in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude. For each, mark one of three outcomes: you are cited, a competitor is cited, or nobody specific is. Most people are shocked how often it is "competitor" or "nobody".
3. For every loss, find out why. In Perplexity the sources are listed. In ChatGPT you can ask "what sources did you use for that". Open them. You will almost always see the same pattern: the model is leaning on third party pages (listicles, comparison posts, Reddit threads, review sites) where you are absent or described weakly.
4. Fix the source layer, per engine. Get mentioned where the model actually looks. For Perplexity that often means real Reddit and forum presence. For ChatGPT it means being in the listicles and comparison content that rank on the web. This is slower but it is the lever.
5. Fix your own pages so they are easy to quote. Models lift text that answers the question directly. Clear claims, a direct comparison, specific numbers, plain phrasing. There is research on Generative Engine Optimization (a 2024 paper) suggesting that content which states things clearly and backs them up tends to shape more of the answer. Treat the exact figures people throw around with caution, the effect varies a lot by query, but the direction is sound: be the clearest, most quotable answer to the exact question.
6. Re-run the same 10 prompts in two or three weeks. AI answers move. Track the change.

What to ignore: anyone selling you a fixed multiplier ("add 3 stats, get 2x citations") is overstating it. Anyone saying "just add schema and you win" is too. There is no single trick. It is the same boring truth as SEO: be genuinely the best, clearest answer, in the places the model trusts.

Honest note: I work on this problem, so take the framing with that in mind. But everything above you can do today for free, that is the point.

Open question for the group: when you run your own category prompt in ChatGPT cold, do you show up, a competitor, or nobody? Curious what the split looks like across niches.

Bonjour à tous !

Je suis à la recherche d'études / d'articles de vidéos ou autres ressources qui seront utiles quand on s'intéresse au GEO !

SI vous avez une vidéo ou un articles ou autre je suis tout à fait preneur (ou même un post reddit !)

Salut,

Je sais que vous avez peut-être déjà croisé un post du genre, et je sais aussi que Reddit n'est pas franchement tendre avec ce format. Tant pis, j'assume — au pire vous scrollez.

Le contexte : je construis une boîte (IA, backé Antler) et j'ai monté un Discord de founders francophones parce que les communautés que je trouvais étaient soit mortes, soit remplies de gens qui vendent des formations. Des founders qui buildent pour de vrai (SaaS, IA, e-com, apps, agences), du feedback produit, de l'entraide, des vrais échanges.

Transparence totale : je gagne 0€ avec, rien à vendre, ce n'est pas un funnel vers ma boîte. Juste l'envie d'être bien entouré pendant que je construis.

Ça grossit plus vite que prévu (140+ en quelques jours), donc visiblement je ne suis pas le seul à chercher ça. Si vous buildez un truc et que ça vous parle, dites-le en commentaire.

Et si l'idée de "encore une commu" vous gonfle : je comprends, aucun souci, bonne continuation

Salut,

Ça fait un moment que je cherche une vraie communauté de founders. Des gens qui construisent pour de vrai, pas des comptes qui te spamment du coaching ou qui recyclent des citations LinkedIn.

Et à chaque fois c'est pareil : soit le serveur est mort depuis six mois, soit c'est rempli de gens qui veulent te vendre une formation à 2000 balles pour "passer à 10k/mois".

Donc j'ai fini par monter mon propre Discord. L'idée est simple : un endroit pour des founders FR qui buildent vraiment (SaaS, IA, e-commerce, apps, agences), où on partage les vrais chiffres, les galères, ce qui marche et ce qui foire. Avec de l'entraide produit et du feedback honnête, entre gens au même stade.

Pour être transparent : je ne gagne strictement rien avec. C'est gratuit, rien à vendre, aucune formation cachée, et ce n'est pas un funnel vers ma boîte. Je veux juste m'entourer de gens qui construisent, parce que le faire seul c'est dur.

Si vous êtes en train de lancer ou de faire tourner un truc et que ça vous parle, dites-le en commentaire ou en MP, je vous explique le concept.

Et si vous connaissez déjà de bonnes communautés FR du genre, je suis preneur aussi ! C'est un peu le but du post au fond.

The single biggest reason landing pages underperform is not design. It is the curse of knowledge. You know your product, your price, your category, your jargon. The cold visitor knows none of it, and decides in about five seconds whether to stay. You literally cannot read your own page the way they do, which is why obvious problems stay invisible to you.

A few ways to break out of your own head and actually see it:

• The blur test. Squint at your hero or shrink the tab until the text is barely legible. The shapes and the one biggest line should still communicate what it is and who it is for. If the only readable thing is a vague slogan, that is what visitors get too.
• The stranger test. Show the top of your page to someone outside your space for five seconds, hide it, and ask them to say what you sell and to whom. If they hesitate, your headline is describing the product instead of the outcome.
• The CTA reward test. Read your main button alone. Does it name what you get ("Get my free audit") or just the effort ("Submit", "Sign up")? Name the reward.
• The friction count. Count every field, click, and unanswered question between landing and the action. Each one is a place to leave. Cut what you do not strictly need and state what happens after the click.
• The proof test. Find your strongest testimonial. Is it a specific, attributed result, or vague praise? One concrete outcome beats a wall of logos, placed right next to the button.

One newer thing sitting upstream of all this: a growing share of buyers ask ChatGPT or Perplexity "what is the best [category]?" before they ever reach a page. If the model names a competitor and not you, your perfect landing page never gets the visit.

I got tired of eyeballing this manually so I built a few free tools that score it for you, no login. Happy to drop the link in the comments, but the tests above work on their own.

For the people here who have actually moved their conversion: was it the page, the offer, or the traffic source? Curious how often it turns out not to be the page at all.

Construire publiquement, c'est aussi exposer ses faiblesses, alors en voici une.

Contexte : Je gère un petit outil d'audit de landing page et j'en ai orienté une partie vers GEO, afin d'aider les fondateurs à vérifier si les assistants vocaux (ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.) les recommandent. Pour le promouvoir, j'ai publié des conseils GEO avec des chiffres péremptoires : « Plus de 3 statistiques doublent vos citations », « les tableaux comparatifs sont 5 fois plus cités ». Je les avais répétés parce que tout le monde le faisait.

Quelqu'un, r/SEO , a analysé mon message ligne par ligne, a retracé les affirmations jusqu'à l'article de recherche original et a démontré que la plupart de ces chiffres n'y figuraient pas. Il avait raison. Je les avais copiés de blogs secondaires sans vérifier la source primaire.

Deux options : me défendre ou admettre. J'ai admis, point par point, dans la discussion. Et là, un événement inattendu s'est produit : cette personne est devenue un allié. Il a même affiné ma position corrigée avec moi dans les commentaires.

Ce que j'ai fait le même jour :

• J'ai supprimé les chiffres falsifiés de mon produit (l'outil affichait les mêmes affirmations).
• J'ai tout réécrit pour ne retenir que les données issues de la recherche.
• Je me suis fixé une règle : aucune statistique ni affirmation du type « une étude montre » ne sera publiée sans vérification de la source primaire.

L'état actuel du projet, sans fioritures :

• Environ 18 adresses e-mail valides ont été collectées jusqu'à présent, presque toutes grâce à l'audit gratuit de la page de destination. Peu, mais bien réelles.
• La distribution est essentielle et représente la plus grande difficulté. Je reçois des e-mails lorsque je publie et je n'en reçois plus lorsque je ne publie pas. Il n'y a pas de pilotage automatique. Je valide actuellement une version 2 récurrente (surveillance hebdomadaire de la visibilité par IA) avec une liste d'attente de fondateurs avant de développer le backend, afin d'éviter de créer un produit inutile.

La leçon que j'ai retenue : sur un sujet technique, la crédibilité ne vient pas du fait d'avoir toujours raison, mais de la façon dont on réagit lorsqu'on a tort. L'admettre publiquement m'a coûté un coup dur pour mon ego, mais m'a aussi valu la confiance et un allié. Un bilan largement positif.

Je serais ravi de partager ce que je développe dans les commentaires si cela peut être utile. Pour ceux qui développent publiquement : quel est le retour négatif le plus constructif que vous ayez reçu, et qu'avez-vous modifié en conséquence ?

Bootstrapping a micro-SaaS, I spent almost all my time on the product and treated the landing page as an afterthought. Then traffic came and barely converted. Here is what I learned auditing my own page and a lot of others, plus a newer thing most of us are sleeping on.

The boring fundamentals that actually move conversion (none are about design):

• Hero clarity. Cover everything but the top of your page. If a cold visitor cannot say what it is, who it is for, and why it is better in about 5 seconds, the headline is describing the product instead of the outcome. Lead with the result for a specific person.
• Your CTA should name the reward, not the effort. "Get my free audit" beats "Submit".
• Outcomes over features. For each feature add the "so that you can..." and lead with that half.
• Cut friction at the click. Fewer form fields, and say plainly what happens next.
• Specific proof beats volume. One concrete result from a named person beats "loved by thousands".

The meta-point: you are not your audience. You know the product, the price, the jargon. The visitor knows nothing. Read your page as if you landed on it by accident.

The newer thing, and the reason I pivoted part of my focus: a growing share of buyers ask ChatGPT or Perplexity "what is the best [category]?" before they ever hit a website. The AI names a few options. No page 2, no ads to buy your spot. If it names a competitor and not you, your perfectly optimized page never gets the visit. That channel is wide open right now because almost nobody is checking where they stand on it.

Quick way to check yourself, no tool needed: open Perplexity with web search, ask the exact question your buyers would, without naming your brand, and see who it lists. Run it a few times, the answers vary.

I ended up building free tools around both problems (a landing page audit, plus an AI-visibility checker that asks the engines your buyers' questions and shows if you get named). No login. Happy to drop the link in the comments, but the checklist stands on its own.

For the other solo founders here: what actually moved your conversion or your first 10 customers? Curious how much was the page vs the offer vs distribution.

I build and audit landing pages, and the issues that actually cost conversions are almost never visual. They are about clarity and friction. Here is the short list, with the fastest fix for each, so you can self-audit before touching anything.

1. The hero fails the 5-second test. Cover everything except the top of your page and show it to someone who has never seen your product. If they cannot say what it is, who it is for, and why it is better within five seconds, your headline is describing the product ("the all-in-one platform for modern teams") instead of the outcome for a specific person. Lead with the result, name the person.

2. The CTA names the effort, not the reward. "Submit", "Get started", and "Sign up" tell the visitor what work they have to do. "Get my free audit" tells them what they get. Always name the reward.

3. The page sells features, not outcomes. "Real-time sync, SSO, unlimited seats" is what it has. People buy what it does for them. For each feature, add the "so that you can..." and lead with that half.

4. Too much friction at the moment of commitment. Every extra form field and every unclear next step is a reason to leave. Cut the form to the minimum you actually need, and state plainly what happens after they click.

5. Vague social proof. "Loved by thousands" is wallpaper. One concrete, attributed result is evidence. Put your single strongest proof point right next to the primary button, where doubt peaks.

The thread running through all five: you are not your audience. You know the product, the price, the category, the jargon. The cold visitor knows none of it. Read your own page as if you landed on it by accident with zero context, and the leaks become obvious in about a minute.

One newer thing worth flagging, because it sits upstream of the page: a growing share of buyers ask ChatGPT or Perplexity "what is the best [category]?" before they ever reach a website. If the model names your competitor and not you, even a perfect landing page never gets the visit.

I built a few free tools that score these for you (hero clarity, CTA strength, a full audit of a URL, and whether AI recommends you), no login. Happy to drop the link in the comments if useful, but the checklist above stands on its own.

What is the single change that moved your conversion the most? Curious whether it was the hero, the CTA, or the offer itself.

Salut,

Je construis dans la tech FR depuis un moment (je bosse sur une startup Miria, backé Antler), et un constat revient souvent autour de moi : l'écosystème français est génial, mais éclaté. Les founders sont sur X, sur LinkedIn, dans des Slacks fermés, des groupes WhatsApp… et au final on se parle peu entre gens au même stade.

Les communautés "entrepreneur" que j'ai testées sont souvent soit mortes, soit noyées sous le coaching et les formations à vendre.

Du coup j'ai monté un petit Discord pour essayer de regrouper ça autrement : des founders francophones qui construisent pour de vrai (SaaS, IA, e-commerce, apps, agences), avec du feedback produit honnête, de l'entraide growth/tech/design, des AMA et du coworking. On démarre petit et trié, pour garder du signal.

Pour être transparent : je ne gagne rien avec, il n'y a rien à vendre, c'est gratuit. Je veux juste être bien entouré pendant que je build, parce que le faire seul c'est dur et que les bonnes conversations font gagner des mois.

Si tu es en train de lancer ou de faire tourner quelque chose et que ça te parle, dis-le en commentaire. Et si tu connais déjà de bonnes communautés FR du genre, je suis preneur aussi, c'est un peu le but du post au fond.

Hello,

Je construis des trucs en solo/petite équipe depuis un moment, et le truc qui m'a le plus manqué, ce n'est pas les outils ou les tutos c'est les gens. Des founders au même stade que moi, avec qui parler des vrais sujets : ce qui marche, ce qui foire, les chiffres qu'on ne montre jamais en public.

J'ai cherché ça dans des communautés existantes, et soit c'est mort, soit c'est noyé sous les gens qui veulent te vendre une formation. Du coup j'ai monté mon propre petit Discord.

Le principe : des founders francophones qui buildent pour de vrai (SaaS, e-commerce, apps, agences…), de l'entraide produit, du feedback honnête, des AMA, des sessions de coworking. On démarre petit et trié, pour garder de la qualité.

Pour être clair : je ne gagne rien avec, il n'y a rien à vendre, aucune formation cachée. C'est gratuit et ça le restera. Je veux juste être bien entouré, parce que construire seul c'est dur.

Si tu es en train de lancer ou de faire tourner quelque chose et que ce genre d'endroit te parle, dis-le en commentaire. Et si tu connais déjà de bonnes communautés du genre, je suis preneur aussi 🙏

The "GEO" space is filling up with confident numbers that fall apart the moment you check the source. I traced a lot of them back to the primary research (Aggarwal et al., GEO: Generative Engine Optimization, KDD 2024) and separated what holds from what is folklore. Here is the honest version, plus a mental model that has held up better than any single tactic.

First, what the headline study actually measures. It tested content edits across thousands of queries and tracked Position-Adjusted Word Count: roughly how much of your page's text the engine pulls into its generated answer. That is the key caveat almost no post mentions. It is not "odds of being cited", not clicks, not whether a human saw you or bought. You can score well on it and still be cut out of the actual buying journey. It also ran against a system built to resemble Bing Chat, not live ChatGPT. Treat it as directional.

What genuinely helped in the research:

• Quoting named experts was the single strongest lever.
• Adding concrete statistics helped.
• Citing credible sources helped.
• Answering the question in the first sentence, question-shaped headings, and a short FAQ all map to how people prompt.

What to stop repeating (not in the paper):

• "Three or more stats doubles your citation rate." Not there. The real result is a lift on a text-share metric, not a doubling of citations.
• "Comparison tables get cited 3 to 5x more." The study never tested list vs prose as a variable. No primary source.
• "SEO is dead, GEO replaces it." Wrong, and the most harmful. The paper explicitly did not touch metadata like backlinks, so it cannot claim they do not matter.

The mental model that actually explains behavior (stated as a hypothesis, not a law).
Your own pages mostly define what you ARE: your attributes, who it is for. That gets you into the consideration set. Between two comparable options, the deciding signal tends to be earned, third-party corroboration: reviews, "best of" roundups, community threads. And when a buyer adds constraints (budget, team size, use case), the option that survives tends to be the one whose third-party evidence consistently frames it for that exact role. If three sources position you three different ways, the model gets a muddy signal. Consistency of positioning across sources may matter as much as raw volume of mentions.

Why your existing SEO still matters here. ChatGPT's search leans on Bing's index, and Perplexity leans heavily on Reddit. So your rankings and off-site presence still feed whether AI names you. GEO is additive to SEO, not a replacement. The "different game, start over" framing makes people stop doing things that still work.

The cheapest honest check, no tool required. Open Perplexity or ChatGPT with web search, ask the exact question your buyers would ("best [category] for [use case]") without naming your brand, and note who gets listed. Run it a few times. The answers vary, and that variance is part of the picture, not a bug to ignore.

Practical priority if you are starting: get into a couple of credible third-party "best [category]" roundups, publish honest comparison and alternatives pages, make sure your real strengths are stated consistently wherever you are mentioned, and add concrete stats and named quotes to your own key pages. That ordering reflects what seems to move the needle off-site versus on-site.

I built a small free tool that automates the "does AI name me or my competitors" check across a few assistants, and a separate one that scores a page on the on-site GEO levers. Happy to drop the links in the comments, but everything above stands on its own.

Question for anyone who has actually moved this: was it on-site changes (stats, quotes, structure) or off-site presence (Reddit, roundups, reviews) that got AI to start naming you? I suspect off-site dominates, but I would love counter-examples.

Je conçois et j'audite des landing pages, et je retrouve sans cesse les mêmes problèmes faciles à corriger. Voici un auto-audit que tu peux lancer maintenant, plus les outils gratuits que j'ai faits pour ne plus avoir à le faire à l'oeil.

Les checks manuels :

• Clarté du hero. Cache tout sauf le haut de la page. Si un visiteur froid ne peut pas dire ce que tu fais et pour qui en ~5 secondes, ton titre décrit ton produit au lieu du résultat. Mets en avant le bénéfice concret pour une personne précise.
• CTA. Ton bouton doit nommer la récompense, pas l'effort. "Obtenir mon audit" bat "Envoyer", parce que ça dit ce qu'on obtient.
• Bénéfices plutôt que fonctionnalités. Pour chaque fonctionnalité, ajoute le "pour que tu puisses..." et commence par cette moitié.
• Preuve sociale précise. Un résultat concret d'une vraie personne vaut mieux que dix lignes de "adoré par des milliers".

Le problème de fond derrière tout ça : la page est écrite pour toi, qui sais tout, pas pour le visiteur froid, qui ne sait rien.

J'en ai fait quelques outils gratuits (sans compte) : un note ton titre de hero, un évalue ton CTA, un fait l'audit complet d'une URL, et un vérifie si les IA te recommandent quand un acheteur pose la question. Je peux mettre le lien en commentaire, mais la checklist tient toute seule.

C'est quoi le seul changement qui a le plus bougé ta conversion ? Hero, CTA, ou l'offre elle-même ?

I build and audit landing pages, and the same fixable issues come up constantly. Sharing a quick self-audit you can run right now, plus the free tools I made so you do not have to eyeball it.

The manual checks:

• Hero clarity. Hide everything except the top of the page. If a cold visitor cannot say what you do and who it is for in about 5 seconds, the headline is describing your product instead of the outcome. Lead with the specific result for a specific person.
• CTA. Your button should name the reward, not the effort. "Get my free audit" beats "Submit" because it tells people what they get.
• Outcomes over features. For every feature, add the "so that you can..." and lead with that half.
• Specific social proof. One concrete result from a named person beats ten lines of "loved by thousands".

The meta-issue behind all of these: the page is written for you, who knows everything, not for the cold visitor, who knows nothing.

I turned these into a few free tools (no login): one scores your hero headline, one rates your CTA, one runs a full conversion audit of a URL, and one checks whether AI assistants actually recommend you when buyers ask. Happy to drop the link in the comments, but the checklist above stands on its own.

What is the single change that moved your conversion the most ? Hero, CTA, or the offer itself ?

I build and audit landing pages, and the same handful of leaks show up again and again. None of them are exotic. They are boring fundamentals that founders skip because they are too close to their own product. Here they are, with the fastest fix for each.

1. The hero fails the 5-second test. A cold visitor should know what you do, who it is for, and why it is better, in five seconds. Most heroes describe the product ("the all-in-one platform for modern teams") instead of the outcome. Fix: lead with the specific result for a specific person. Show your headline to someone who has never seen your product and ask them to say back what you sell. If they hesitate, rewrite it.

2. The CTA makes no promise. "Submit", "Get started", "Sign up" tell the visitor nothing about what happens next. Fix: say what they get. "Get my free audit" beats "Submit" because it names the reward, not the effort.

3. Features instead of outcomes. "Real-time sync, SSO, unlimited seats" is what it has. People buy what it does for them. Fix: for each feature, add the "so that you can..." and lead with that half.

4. Too much friction at the moment of commitment. Every extra form field and every unclear next step is a reason to leave. Fix: cut the form to the minimum you actually need to follow up, and tell people exactly what happens after they click.

5. Social proof that is vague. "Loved by thousands" is forgettable. A specific outcome from a named person is believable. Fix: replace generic praise with one concrete result ("cut our onboarding time, said X, role at Y"). One specific testimonial beats ten vague ones.

The meta-leak behind all of these: the page is written for the founder, who already knows everything, not for the cold visitor, who knows nothing. Read your page as if you landed on it by accident with no context. The gaps become obvious fast.

I got tired of eyeballing this manually so I built a small free tool that scores a page on these and gives the leaks, happy to drop the link in the comments if useful, but the checklist above stands on its own.

What is the one change that moved your landing page conversion the most? Curious whether it was the hero, the CTA, or the offer itself.

Salut,

Ça fait un moment que je cherche une communauté avec de vrais fondateurs et entrepreneurs, des gens qui construisent vraiment quelque chose, pas des comptes qui te spamment du coaching ou qui répètent des citations LinkedIn h24

J'ai testé pas mal de serveurs et de groupes, et c'est presque toujours pareil : soit c'est mort, soit c'est rempli de gens qui veulent te vendre une formation.

Du coup j'ai fini par créer mon propre serveur Discord. L'idée est simple : un endroit pour des founders francophones qui buildent pour de vrai, où on partage les vrais chiffres, les galères, les trucs qui marchent et ceux qui foirent. Avec de l'entraide produit, du feedback honnête, et des gens au même stade que toi.

Pour être transparent : je ne gagne strictement rien avec ça. C'est gratuit, il n'y a rien à vendre, aucune formation cachée. Je cherche juste à m'entourer d'autres entrepreneurs avec qui échanger, parce que construire seul c'est dur et que les bonnes conversations font avancer.

Si ça vous parle et que vous êtes en train de lancer / faire tourner un truc (SaaS, e-commerce, app, agence, peu importe), dites-le en commentaire

Et si vous connaissez déjà de bonnes communautés du genre, je prends aussi c'est un peu le but du post au fond.

Et oui je post ça sur french tech je vois déjà le commentaire venir mdrrr

https://discord.gg/UnJg4MHj

There's a lot of GEO advice going around with confident numbers: "3+ stats doubles your citations", "comparison tables get cited 5x more", "SEO is dead". I'd repeated a couple of these myself until someone took the time to check my sources and was right that they don't hold up. So I went back to the primary source (Aggarwal et al., GEO: Generative Engine Optimization, KDD 2024) and separated what's verified from what's folklore.

What the research actually measures

The study tested content edits across thousands of queries and measured Position-Adjusted Word Count: roughly, how much of your page's text the engine pulls into its generated answer. That's the key thing to understand, because it is NOT "odds of being cited", it is not clicks, and it is not whether a human saw you or bought anything. A page can score well on this and still be cut out of the actual buying journey. It also ran against a system built to resemble Bing Chat, not live ChatGPT, so treat it as directional.

What genuinely works (verified)

• Quoting named experts was the single strongest lever (around +40% on that visibility metric).
• Adding concrete statistics helped (around +30%).
• Citing credible sources helped (around +30%).
• Adjacent and well supported: answer the question in the first sentence, use question-shaped headings, add a short FAQ.

The myths to stop repeating

• "3 or more stats doubles your citation rate." Not in the paper. The real result is a ~30% lift on a text-share metric, not a doubling of citations.
• "Comparison tables and listicles get cited 3 to 5x more." The study never tested list vs prose as a variable. No primary source.
• "SEO is dead, GEO replaces it." False, and the most harmful. The paper explicitly did not touch metadata like backlinks, so it cannot claim they don't matter.
• "You can't influence it, it's a black box." Half true. You can't control it, but the inputs (what your pages say you're for, and whether credible third parties corroborate it) are workable.

How AI seems to pick who it recommends (hypothesis, not settled science)

Your own pages mostly define what you ARE, which gets you into the consideration set. Between comparable options, the deciding signal tends to be earned third-party corroboration: reviews, roundups, community threads. And when a buyer adds constraints (budget, team size, use case), the option that survives tends to be the one whose third-party evidence consistently frames it for that exact role. If three sources position you three different ways, the model gets a muddy signal. Consistency of positioning across sources may matter as much as raw volume.

Why SEO still feeds AI citations

ChatGPT's search leans on Bing's index. Perplexity leans heavily on Reddit. So your existing SEO and off-site presence still feed whether AI names you. GEO is additive to SEO, not a replacement.

The fastest honest check

Ask Perplexity or ChatGPT the exact questions your buyers would, without naming your brand, and see who gets listed. Run it a few times, the answers vary, and that variance is part of the picture.

Curious if anyone here has tested these levers directly. Did adding stats/quotes/sources change whether AI names you, or was it mostly the off-site stuff that moved it ?

I've been going deep on how AI assistants decide who to recommend, and the most useful thing I've found runs against most of the advice out there.

Almost everyone optimizes their own page. But your own site mostly tells the model what you ARE: your features, your pricing, who it's for. That's what gets you into the consideration set in the first place. It rarely decides whether you get picked.

What seems to actually tip a recommendation toward you over a comparable competitor is earned, third-party signal: reviews, "best of" roundups, community threads. Perplexity leans heavily on Reddit. ChatGPT's search pulls from Bing's index, which is full of those same third-party pages. So the deciding factor often lives entirely off your domain, in whether credible sources elsewhere corroborate you.

A few honest caveats, because the GEO space is full of confident numbers that don't hold up:

• The well-known study on this (Aggarwal et al., KDD 2024) measures how much of your text shows up in the AI's answer, not whether a human saw it, clicked, or bought. Useful signal, but narrower than the hype.
• A lot of the "X format gets cited 3-5x more" stats floating around aren't actually in the research. Worth tracing claims to the primary source before acting on them.
• "SEO is dead, GEO replaces it" is wrong. Since ChatGPT retrieves through Bing, your existing SEO and backlinks still feed AI citations. It's additive.

The cheapest way to see where you stand: open Perplexity with web search, ask "best [your category] for [use case]" without naming your brand, and note who it lists. Run it a few times, the answers vary, and that variance is part of the picture.

What I'm still trying to figure out: for those of you who've actually moved the needle, was it on-site changes (stats, sources, structure) or off-site presence (Reddit, reviews, roundups) that made AI start naming you? Curious which mattered more in practice.