u/XudaChris

I do AEO consulting and for a while i checked client visibility the slow way, opening chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, claude and grok in separate tabs and running the same prompts by hand. it works until you have more than two clients, then it falls apart, and the worse part is it can mislead you.

One week i ran gemini and it answered only 3 of my 20 test prompts. i nearly told a client their gemini presence had fallen off, then ran it again a week later and it answered all 20, fine the whole time. the engine had been flaky that day. one check cant tell an engine having a bad day from a brand actually losing ground, so a single snapshot would have had me sending a panic email over nothing.

Thats the case for running it on a schedule instead of by hand, the same prompts hitting all 5 on a fixed cadence so you see the trend.

The manual version dying past two clients is what made me build a proper tool for it (loudmink). the one thing i'd pass on if you build your own: tracking by itself doesnt fix anything, knowing youre missing from a query only helps if something turns it into content you actually publish.

If youve automated this, where do you land on cadence, daily, or is weekly enough to see the real moves?

made a tool called Loudmink for my own AEO consulting and want people to test it. it checks whether chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, claude and grok recommend your brand or your competitors and shows where youre missing, then drafts content to fix it, and nothing goes live without your ok.

its normally $99/mo but im giving it free to testers for honest feedback, and you can point it at your own clients or your own site.

tell me where it breaks. comment or dm and ill get you in.

looking for a few testers for an AEO tool i built. it tracks what the 5 main engines (chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, claude, grok) say about your brand and finds the queries youre missing from, then drafts content to get you in, and you approve before anything publishes.

i built it for my own AEO consulting and want real feedback before i lean on it for everyone. its normally $99/mo, free for testers in exchange for honest feedback, and you can run it on your own clients or your own brand.

if youre doing SEO or content and AI search is on your radar, comment or dm and ill set you up.

been building this for a few months and figured id put it in front of people here. it started because i do AEO consulting and kept checking by hand whether ai search engines recommended my clients or a competitor, which doesnt scale, so i built a tool to run it. its called Loudmink.

it tracks what chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, claude and grok say about a brand and finds where youre missing, then drafts the content to close the gap, with you approving everything first.

where im at, it works for my own client work but ive only had my own eyes on it. im giving it free to a few people for testing and feedback before i push it wider, and you can use it on your own clients or your own thing.

if youre building in this space or doing SEO, comment or dm and ill get you access.

had this come up with a b2b client last week. their page shows up as a source under the answer, you can see the citation sitting right there, but when perplexity names a pick for "best X for small teams" its a competitor every time, not them. so being pulled in as a source and being the named recommendation are two different things, and i kept blurring them together until this.

went looking at what the engine reads before it commits to a name. my client's page got used for one factual line, basically a definition. the competitor's page had a section written for the exact situation in the question, a small team on a tight budget. so the engine took my client for a fact and the competitor for the answer. the page that maps to the real intent wins the pick, the page that only holds a true sentence gets cited and dropped.

i'd been doing this by hand for clients and ended up building my own tool for it (loudmink), which is how i could line the cited page and the recommended one up next to each other. the pattern held on most of the queries i looked at, though not all of them.

when you've sorted this for a brand, did you add use-case sections to the pages you already had, or write net-new pages per intent?

I keep my own logs of where the five main AI engines pull their sources for a batch of B2B queries, and for the whole time i'd tracked it perplexity stuck to publisher articles and brand pages and never touched reddit, the opposite of grok, which has always leaned on reddit threads by the dozen.

That stayed the same for months, then shifted over the last two weekly pulls, with reddit turning up in 17 of 20 perplexity answers one week and 18 of 20 the next, and these were real threads like r/CRM and r/projectmanagement rather than scraped listicles.

Grok still pulls more reddit by raw volume, but together the two of them now make up roughly 90% of every reddit citation i see across all the engines, which i track on loudmink.

The old view on perplexity, by which it favors polished sources over community threads, isn't true anymore, and a change that size stays invisible unless you watch every engine week to week. anyone else tracking this seeing the same move, or is it specific to my query set?

I made a tool called Loudmink for my own AEO client work, because the trackers i was using only give one blended visibility score and hide how differently chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, grok and claude each rank you.

It pulls the same query set across all five engines each week and shows the per-engine ranks plus where youre missing from the answers, then it writes articles for the gaps, finds the reddit threads those engines cite, drafts the posts, and can publish for you once you approve.

Before i run it properly on real client work im letting a few people try it on a real brand and break it. No cost, im after honest feedback on what worked, what didnt, what confused you, and what you wished it did.

If youre doing SEO or AEO and AI search is on your radar, comment or dm and ill set you up.

Ive been doing AEO for B2B clients and built my own tool, Loudmink, because the trackers i was using only show one blended score and hide how differently each engine ranks you.

It pulls the same queries across chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, grok and claude weekly, shows the per-engine ranks and where youre missing from the answers, then it goes a step further and writes articles for the gaps, surfaces the reddit threads those engines cite, drafts the posts, and can publish for you once you approve.

Before i run it properly on client work i want a few people to try it on a real brand and tell me where it breaks. No cost, im after honest feedback on what worked, what didnt, what confused you, and what you wished it did.

If youre building or marketing something and AI search matters to you, comment or dm and ill set you up.

Ive been building an AEO tool called Loudmink and im after a few beta testers to break it before i use it on real client work.

Quick version of what it does, it tracks what the AI search engines (chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, grok, claude) say about your brand and how each one ranks you, then it finds where youre missing from the answers and writes the content to fix it, including the reddit threads those engines pull from, and it can post on your behalf. Everything comes back for your review before anything goes live.

Looking for a handful of people to try it on a real brand, no cost, i want honest feedback on what worked, what didnt, what confused you, and what you wished it did.

If youre doing SEO or AEO and AI search is on your radar, comment or dm and ill set you up.

Doing AEO for a few B2B clients and something changed this month i didnt see coming. Every week i run the same 20 buyer queries across chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, grok and claude through an internal project i call Loudmink (random, i know), and i track how many different brands each engine links out to and then create the content for it

A couple months ago chatgpt linked to the most, around 13 or 14 brands a week, and grok was way back at 7 or 8. Now its the other way round, grok links to 14 and chatgpt is down to 9. So the engine i used to lean on for the widest reach is now the one giving the fewest brands a link.

When a brand is barely showing up anywhere, i used to start a new client on chatgpt. Now grok puts more of them in front of people with a link, so thats where id start.

Anyone else seeing grok link to more brands than chatgpt, or is chatgpt still ahead in your data?

I spent a morning dumping every cited URL ChatGPT, Perplexity, Grok, Claude and Gemini gave back across the buyer queries i track for clients into a small internal thing i call Loudmink (random name generator), mainly to see where the citations actually come from. Grouped by domain it was lopsided in a way i didnt expect, about 15 domains accounted for roughly 68% of every citation, mostly the usual suspects, big review sites, wikipedia, a couple of subreddits.

What was interesting is how rarely the clients' own domains showed up. We pour weeks into their docs and blog and that work lands maybe a handful of times, while a single G2 page or reddit thread gets pulled again and again.

Its making me think that on-page is a small portion of a huge job, the bigger part is getting onto those 15 surfaces. If your own site isnt one of them, is page-level AEO even where the time should go?

I do AEO for a handful of B2B clients and one's in analytics, where for months i'd been pointing them at PostHog as the brand to study, since its open-source community kept earning citations across every engine. That flipped fast. Over the last month PostHog dropped from 8 citations to 3 in the analytics queries i pull, while Amplitude went the other way to 13, the most i've recorded for any single brand.

Im chipping away at my own tracker that pulls the same queries across the engines weekly so i can see the count per brand instead of one blended score, and the handover happened in a single cycle. Amplitude is winning off G2 and review-site coverage rather than its own docs, the opposite of how PostHog built its run.

So the open-source-community route to citations might have a shorter shelf life than it looked. Has anyone watched a brand hold its citation lead in one category for more than a month or two, or does the top spot rotate this fast for you as well?

Was tracking how the category competitors for one of my PM clients land across the 5 AI engines and Linear's spread was the most lopsided. On best alternative to Jira, same week, Linear lands #1 on ChatGPT, #1 on Claude, #2 on Perplexity, #3 on Grok, and #4 on Gemini.

Im piecing together my own script that pulls the same query set across all 5 engines and stacks the output per brand, which is how i can see all 5 ranks at the same time.

The existing AEO platforms collapse all this into a single visibility score which hides the variance, so the client cant make a call off one number when the same competitor looks different on every engine.

Anyone else seeing brand-level variance this wide across the 5 engines for client work, or is it more of a project management category thing?

Been running the same buyer queries across the 5 AI engines weekly for client AEO work. The engines agree on a single #1 brand only about half the time, no matter which category were checking.

Project management is the worst, zero queries with strong consensus for 2 weeks running across asana, monday, clickup, linear. Analytics is the opposite direction and getting more agreement over time. Most categories sit in the middle.

The implication for client reporting is awkward. If a clients brand ranks #1 on perplexity but not chatgpt, do we call that a win? Most current AEO tools only report one visibility number which hides this completely.

Has anyone built a multi-engine scoring system that handles the disagreement in a way clients understand, or are you also reporting per-engine and letting them interpret?

Been tracking AEO for a B2B client where the engines keep naming the brand in answers but never link back to their site. Counted it across 3 weeks of the same buyer queries, mentions are sitting around 15 per week across the 5 engines and citations are flat at 0.

Other clients of mine show the opposite, low mention count but a steady trickle of actual cited URLs going back to their docs and blog.

The worry for the no-citation client is that mentions dont feed retrieval. If the engine names you off the top of its head without ever pulling a source, theres no URL going into the next cycle, and youre relying on the engine to keep you in its head forever.

Anyone splitting mentions and citations as separate metrics for clients, or is everyone reporting one combined visibility number?

Our brand visibility on ChatGPT bounces 35-50% week to week even when we havent shipped anything new. Meanwhile Claude has been exactly the same number of citations for 6 weeks running with no movement at all.

So ive started leaning on Claude as the test signal. If we publish something and our Claude visibility shifts, the change is probably legit. If only ChatGPT changes, im assuming its the engine swinging around until 2 or 3 cycles.

Is anybody else doing this, or do you have a better way to tell if your AEO changes are working?