From Google Search’s perspective, optimizing for generative AI search is still SEO (Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search). GEO focuses specifically on visibility within generated answers (GEO: Generative Engine Optimization). You can judge a separate GEO proposal by whether its objective adds to your existing content scope and whether its reporting distinguishes search visibility from answer citations.
Start with the groundwork in our earlier article: Is SEO dead now with AI?
Is GEO better than SEO?
For Google Search, GEO belongs within SEO, so the label alone does not justify a separate service. Google’s treatment applies to Google Search and does not define every generative engine’s behavior.
GEO stands for generative engine optimization, a term Google describes as work focused on visibility in AI search experiences. The research paper GEO: Generative Engine Optimization describes a framework for tailoring website content to increase visibility within proprietary generative engines.
At Recala, we include GEO alongside SEO within our content remit. Our scope covers content strategy, articles and on-page preparation, with guaranteed rankings and guaranteed AI citations explicitly excluded. We have no confirmed comparison showing that GEO delivers better acquisition costs, conversion rates or revenue than SEO.
What does GEO add beyond SEO, and which tasks would I already be paying for through SEO?
GEO adds an explicit objective of making your content and company presence useful within generated answers. Useful, source-backed articles remain shared work across SEO, AEO and GEO, so compare those deliverables with the content preparation you already purchase.
The GEO paper describes changes to presentation, text style and content, rather than merely assigning a new label to a website (GEO: Generative Engine Optimization). Its visibility framework addresses how a source appears within a generated response. Ask the provider which visibility metrics it proposes for your web content in generative engines.
A direct answer with identifiable evidence belongs to Recala’s editorial practice. We ask that a factual claim preserve its source, date and scope so you can understand what it actually describes. A section heading resembling a buyer’s question is insufficient when the section beneath it never resolves that question.
Before approving additional content work, ask whether your existing assignment already includes answering buyer questions and supporting the answers with attributable facts. In Recala’s scope, these concerns sit alongside SEO rather than replacing ordinary search visibility.
The GEO paper reports that content methods perform differently across domains (GEO: Generative Engine Optimization). It describes adding citations as particularly beneficial for factual questions, while relevant statistics helped some other domains and question types. Ask a provider to explain why its proposed content changes fit your questions rather than treating one method as equally effective everywhere.
The paper did not evaluate how its GEO methods affected search rankings (GEO: Generative Engine Optimization). Keep claims about search rankings separate from the proposed changes in textual content, because the GEO researchers did not evaluate how their methods affect search rankings.
How do I measure whether SEO and GEO bring useful visibility, visitors and customers?
Keep internal quality scores separate from observed search, reader and commercial outcomes in your reporting. For Google’s generative Search features, use the Generative AI performance report in Search Console, as directed by Google Search Central’s Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search.
For an organic visibility measure comparable to our baseline, record whether your domain appears in the Google organic top 10 for the selected buyer questions. For generated answers, record company mentions and explicit source citations separately. A company mention does not automatically mean that its page was cited. A source being consulted is also a different observation from that source appearing in the answer’s citations.
Our AI search visibility baseline, measured on 2 October 2026, covered 81 buyer questions about B2B SEO, AEO and GEO services. We used anonymous captures through DataForSEO in English for the Spain market, with Google organic and AI Overview SERP tasks and ChatGPT and Gemini scrapers, with web search forced for ChatGPT. ChatGPT had web search forced, and each AI engine received three captures per question.
In that baseline, recala.co appeared in none of the Google organic top-10 results pages or returned AI Overviews. It was also absent from the cited sources in every captured ChatGPT and Gemini answer, and was never named in answer text. We recorded failed or empty captures as unknown rather than treating them as absence.
That baseline measures visibility for English buyer questions in Spain during one capture window, not traffic, customers, revenue or the effect of a content change. Use this baseline as a starting observation of visibility on these 81 buyer questions during one capture window, not as a measure of traffic, leads or revenue. Recala’s baseline measured on 2 October 2026 recorded recala.co in 0 of 81 Google organic top-10 result pages and 0 of 76 returned AI Overviews. The same dated Recala baseline recorded recala.co among cited sources in 0 of 243 ChatGPT answers and 0 of 243 Gemini answers.
For visits that reach your website, Google Search Central’s AI features and your website recommends tracking conversions and time spent on site through analytics tools (AI features and your website).
What should a provider show me before I pay for separate GEO work?
Require a written distinction between shared content preparation and the additional generated-answer objective before agreeing to separate GEO work. Ask the provider to name the target search experience, because Google specifically treats optimization for its generative Search experiences as SEO.
Request a baseline that identifies the buyer questions, capture instrument, date and market. Ask how failed or empty captures are recorded, so unknown results remain visible in the report. Require company mentions and page citations to appear as separate outcomes.
For a claimed gain, ask whether the reported change concerns visibility or a commercial result. An internal article-quality score must remain separate from the search, reader and commercial outcomes the provider reports.
Ask what supports each proposed factual addition to your content, including who produced it, when and what it describes. Google says no third-party tool has access to its internal ranking or AI systems, so evaluate third-party advice against its official guidance.
What a GEO proposal must distinguish
| Named item | Rule or observation | Buying implication |
|---|---|---|
| Claims of internal Google metrics | Third-party tools have no access to Google's internal ranking or AI systems. | Treat promises of ranking success or access to internal metrics with caution. |
| Mentions, retrieval and citations | A company mention does not imply a page citation; a retrieved page does not automatically appear among citations. | Require these observations to remain separate in reporting. |
| Recala's content-service outcomes | Recala excludes guaranteed rankings and guaranteed AI citations. | Report internal quality separately from observed search, reader and commercial outcomes. |
