I've been seeing more people talk about Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), but a lot of the advice feels like recycled SEO tips.
If the goal is to become the source AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity actually reference, what does a real GEO strategy look like?
Começando por dizer que discutir as siglas é menos importante que discutir os conceitos e que destas 4 siglas, 3 descrevem a mesma coisa apenas por ângulos diferentes e só uma é genuinamente distinta.
SEO (ou search engine optimization)- isto é o "tradicional", otimizas para o ranking na página de resultados (geralmente Google) e o objetivo é o clique. Já levamos com 30 anos disto e continua bem válido!!
AEO (ou answer engine optimization)- a ideia é otimizares para seres citado nas respostas do motor de IA (seja Google AI Overviews, Google AI Mode, no Perplexity, ChatGPT Search, ou Gemini) e o objetivo aqui já não é o clique e passa a ser a citação, 99% das vezes sem visita ao site. Ser a fonte que o motor de IA usa quando responde e especialmente se te recomenda, é o novo "estar em primeiro". Claro que na maior parte das vezes não te recomenda só a ti por isso é parecido a estar no "Top 3".
GEO (ou generative engine otimization). Isto é um termo cunhado num estudo académico de 2023 (ver [https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09735\](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09735)) e apesar de os autores não acharem nada disso, na prática isto é só um sinónimo de AEO, com diferença que tem maior foco na fase de geração da resposta. Ainda assim, quem usa GEO e quem usa AEO está a falar da mesma coisa.
AIO (ai optimization??), esta sigla então é mesmo vaga. Às vezes significa só optimização para os AI Overviews da Google, outras vezes significa "AI Optimization" no geral e é a sigla mais inútil das quatro precisamente porque não define fronteira nenhuma.
Agora que está explicado, mais importante que isso: por onde se começa?? Pelo SEO! E não é porque esteja na moda, mas apenas porque um motor não pode citar aquilo que não consegue recuperar e não pode recuperar o que não está indexado, estruturado e claro de entender.
**A ordem certa disto é ENCONTRABILIDADE > INTERPRETABILIDADE > CITABILIDADE**
Saltar a base para "fazer AEO" é como se estivesses a construir o segundo andar de um prédio sem teres lá o primeiro andar...não dá
Queres fazer um teste concreto em 2 minutos?
Pergunta ao ChatGPT ou ao Perplexity ou Claude o que é que a tua empresa faz.
Se a resposta estiver errada, for muito genérica ou até nem aparecerem resultados, o teu problema não é de CITABILIDADE, é de INTERPRETABILIDADE e esse problema tem de ser resolver primeiro.
Quem anda a debater qual das siglas "ganha" à outra, está a olhar para o lado errado da coisa.
O utilizador que faz as perguntas ao motor de IA não quer saber de nenhuma sigla, apenas quer a resposta certa.
A pergunta útil é: quando ele pergunta, a resposta inclui-te ou não?!
Isto bate certo com a vossa experiência ou discordam?
Rui Martins SmartLinks - Consultoria B2B de Marketing e Vendas
I have been involved in web dev and SEO for a good 25 years now. I love it, and it never seems to stop, with every day presenting new and often exciting challenges. And then one day we woke up to AI.
I am still more excited than ever, and to say the least, AI is incredibly invigorating. But I am curious on two fronts.
AI Myths
Our clients at GOOP Digital are being harassed by salespeople who claim they are missing out on AI. (A simple search on ChatGPT or Claude would suggest otherwise.) Advising that they don't have an LLMs.txt file and that they need one. Something we would argue is wrong; however, we end up implementing it to please clients just because they want one, not because there is any real benefit.
There seem to be a lot of AI myths out there, but anecdotally we find there is a lot of 1% actions that can be taken to boost local AI visibility.
AI reporting tools?
I would love feedback here. AI Tools for reporting AI visibility are many, and the cost varies widely. We are now considering developing our own AI reporting tool. They are so expensive with minimal prompts. SEO keyword reporting is so simple and easy to implement, not to mention very objective. Does anyone have any suggestions for me for teh best AI visibility reporting tool for small to medium businesses?
PEEC, Otterly, SE Ranking, SEMrush, Nightwatch, etc.
I look forward to any responses
Thanks
Has anyone else experienced a major drop in AI referral traffic recently?
Last month, traffic coming from ChatGPT and Perplexity to my website dropped significantly and is now close to zero.
What’s confusing is that my organic Google traffic and traffic from other platforms have actually increased during the same period. So the overall website traffic is not declining — the main change seems to be AI referral traffic.
I’m trying to understand what could be causing this. Could it be related to:
Changes in how ChatGPT or Perplexity recommend/cite websites?
Has anyone noticed a similar pattern recently, particularly with ChatGPT or Perplexity referrals?
Any ideas, experiences, or things I should check would be really helpful.
Over the past few months, we've been running tests on how Large Language Models (LLMs) and Google AI Overviews pull legal recommendations compared to traditional organic search results.
A trend that keeps popping up:
A firm can rank #1 on traditional Google Maps for "Personal Injury Lawyer [City]" but be completely omitted when a user asks ChatGPT:
"Who are the top-rated personal injury attorneys in [City] for truck accidents?"
Traditional SEO focuses on keywords, backlinks, and page authority.
AI engines evaluate entity clarity, structured data, and third-party citation consistency.
If you're auditing your firm's AI search visibility, here are 3 technical reasons LLMs may drop law firms:
Traditional search bots can render heavy JavaScript fairly well. But when LLM retrieval systems fetch a page in real time, they may parse the static HTML first.
If your consultation form or primary service details are wrapped in client-side scripts, the AI engine may see an incomplete or empty block and move on to another firm.
Traditional Google looks heavily at keywords and relevance. LLMs also need to understand relationships between entities.
If your schema markup relies primarily on generic Organization data instead of more specific LegalService markup that clearly identifies your services, practice areas, locations, and other relevant relationships, the model may have less confidence in associating your firm with a specific legal query.
ChatGPT and Perplexity don't just rely on your website. AI systems can also encounter information from external platforms such as Reddit, legal directories, news publications, and state bar records.
For example, your website might say you specialize in high-asset divorce, while your directory profiles and other third-party mentions describe you as a general family law practice.
That inconsistency can make it harder for an AI system to confidently associate your firm with a specific query.
I'm curious: Have any solo or boutique firms here tested asking ChatGPT or Perplexity for local recommendations in their practice area?
If so, did your firm actually show up in the results?