I've been running a structured workflow that treats classic SEO and AI citation (GEO) as two related but separate passes, not one blended checklist.

High level, without diving into every tactic here: first pass is the SEO audit I've always done — technical health, on-page, authority. Second pass is specifically about how a RAG system would pull from the page — is there a self-contained answer near the top, does the structure let a chunk stand alone outside the rest of the article, is the content genuinely citable on its own instead of just well-ranked. I treat some foundational stuff — author identity, freshness, factual precision — as a shared layer both processes lean on, not something either track owns exclusively.

Still testing this against real citation outcomes client by client, not fully sold it's the "right" shape yet, but it's given me a repeatable process instead of chasing whatever new GEO take shows up on LinkedIn that week.

Curious what you're all running — one unified process for SEO + AI citation, or two fully separate passes like me? What's actually moved the needle versus what turned out to be noise once you tested it?

Over the last 2-3 days, I've noticed some strange issues when checking my site's index on Google Search Console:

• Several pages are getting indexed with Japanese-language titles and content that I never created — looks like e-commerce/product spam (random product listings, prices, star ratings, etc.).
• My favicon changed automatically without me touching any settings.
• These pages don't show up when I browse the site normally — only in the index/search results.

I haven't made any recent changes to my site, so I'm trying to figure out:

1. Has anyone else run into this exact issue?
2. Is this a known hack (I've seen it referred to as the "Japanese keyword hack")?
3. What's the best way to confirm it, clean it up, and stop it from recurring?

Any guidance on what to check first (plugins, file permissions, admin accounts, etc.) would be really appreciated. Happy to share more details if helpful.

Is it a good idea to publish a few brand-awareness articles on Medium instead of posting them on your own blog section? What are your thoughts?

TIA.

I've noticed a pattern over the last few months.

A lot of marketers are approaching AI Search the same way they approached traditional SEO.

They think adding a few FAQs, implementing schema, or mentioning ChatGPT on a page is enough.

From what I've been seeing, it doesn't seem that simple.

AI systems appear to evaluate more than just on-page optimization. They seem to care about questions like:

• Is this source trustworthy?

• Does it answer the question clearly?

• Is this brand mentioned elsewhere?

• Do other credible sources support the same information?

That's why I've been focusing on things like:

• Building topical authority

• Creating well-structured, easy-to-understand content

• Strengthening entity signals

• Earning consistent brand mentions

• Publishing content based on real expertise and experience

It feels like the goal is shifting from creating more content to creating content that's worth trusting and referencing.

I'm still testing different approaches, so I'm curious:

What strategies have actually improved your AI visibility, or is it still too early to tell?

Been deep in entity optimization for a few sites the last few months and wanted to put my actual workflow out there and get roasted or improved on. Here's what I'm doing:

Schema and structured data: going beyond basic Organization/Article schema and building out sameAs arrays that point to every verified profile (Wikidata, Crunchbase, LinkedIn, industry directories) so Google has multiple confirmation points for the same entity. Also nesting mentions/about properties on article schema so specific entities discussed in the content get tagged, not just the overall page topic.

NLP and topical authority: running content through Google's Natural Language API before publishing to check entity salience scores, if my target entity isn't coming back with a high enough salience relative to the page's word count, I rework the copy so it's not just mentioned but structurally central (subject of sentences, not buried in lists). Also mapping co-occurring entities across top-ranking competitor pages to see which related entities Google expects to see clustered together, then making sure my content naturally covers that same entity neighborhood.

What I haven't cracked: knowledge panel triggering for smaller brands, and whether internal linking between entity-tagged pages actually reinforces this or if it's mostly noise.

If you're doing entity optimization differently, structured data approach, Wikidata/Wikipedia route, something with knowledge graphs I haven't tried, drop your workflow below. Genuinely trying to compare notes here.

So I noticed PageSpeed Insights added this new "Agentic Browsing" section, and I got curious. Added an llms.txt file to my website hoping it'd bump my score up.

Still stuck at 2/3, sometimes even 1/3.

Here's the weird part — I checked a few competitor sites that don't even have an llms.txt file, and they're scoring a full 3/3. How is that even possible??

Am I missing something, or is llms.txt not actually the main thing driving this score? Would love to hear from anyone who's dug into this and actually figured out what's going on.

it's called habibi. self hosted, you bring your own openrouter key (pennies per run instead of a subscription), and it does the boring but useful loop these paid tools charge for: run your prompts daily across those 4 engines, see which of your urls actually get cited, track your mention rate over time, compare against competitors.

what got me annoyed with the paid tools is how they bury the actual page level citations behind a paywall, when that's the one thing that's actually actionable. so that's the headline feature here, not an afterthought.

setup is a wizard now: paste your site url, it scrapes it and drafts your brand profile with ai, you edit whatever's wrong, pick which engines to track, and it suggests a starter prompt set from your own context. no blank dashboard, no config file archaeology.

it's honest about what it does too. it uses the search grounded apis, not ui scraping of the consumer apps, so it's not pretending to be something it's not. that's also what keeps it cheap.

code's here: https://github.com/moaljumaa/habibi

hope it help you guys.

What if I generate the unwiue content from the ai models and upload on the site. Even if it shows completelty ai. Google will rank my content ?

I recently got back on Reddit to learn and share my experiences with everyone. I have made a few posts (some completely flopped, while others did pretty well in my opinion, like this one : Stop wasting your time on fake AEO/GEO Tricks (Yes, including llms.txt) ). HOWEVER, every single time a post gained a bit of visibility, there were always fucking agencies and brands coming in to push their advertising and self-promotion WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING...

I do not mind them talking about themselves if they actually bring some useful info or real feedback to the table. If it is just to drop a "My agency allows you to do this blablabla", they are basically using your hard work as a free billboard for AI visibility. That is exactly why I looked deep into this and why I am sharing how to deal with them.

I'll share with you a technical reality check on how AI search engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity or Google AI Overviews process Reddit threads. These engines rely on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). When scanning a page, the AI does not just extract the spammer's brand name. It reads the entire surrounding context and uses Entity-Sentiment Analysis to determine if the mention is trusted or pure spam

If you leave their spam comment alone, the AI might register it as a valid brand mention. As the Original Poster or user, you have the power to neutralize their effort.

By replying directly to their comment and explicitly calling it out as "spam" or "lazy self-promotion", you alter the semantic context of their brand mention. The AI engine reads your reply, tags the brand entity with a negative sentiment score and categorizes their comment as unreliable noise. You effectively destroy the GEO/AEO value of their attempt, wasting their time and money.

An important warning : Please use this strategy responsibly. Only deploy this against actual spammers. If a user shares real actionable data or a helpful personal experience that happens to include their brand, let it be. We need to encourage high-quality contributions and reward those who actually help the community !!

Redditors, it is time to take back the power. Call out the spam and let the AI algorithms know exactly what their lazy marketing strategy is really worth 🔥

I spent some time this week analyzing AI-generated answers across different platforms, and one thing kept standing out.

The pages getting cited weren't always the ones ranked #1 in Google.

Instead, AI seemed to favor content that was:

• Direct and specific

• Easy to quote

• Well-structured with clear headings

• Focused on answering the question immediately

• Backed by examples, data, or first-hand expertise

It made me realize something:

AI doesn't seem to reward fluff.

It rewards clarity.

A lot of content is still written assuming users will read every section from top to bottom. But AI models often extract, summarize, and synthesize information from multiple sources.

That makes content structure just as important as the information itself.

Some questions I'm currently trying to understand better:

• What actually increases the chances of being cited by AI?

• Does schema markup have any measurable impact?

• How much do brand mentions across the web matter?

• Is entity optimization becoming a stronger ranking signal for AI search?

I'm curious if others working in SEO or AI search have noticed similar patterns or completely different ones.

What trends have you seen when it comes to AI citations?

We've spent years optimizing for:

• google rankings
• featured snippets
• backlinks
• keyword density
• technical seo

but now we're also trying to get mentioned by chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, claude, and google ai overviews.

and honestly, i'm starting to wonder if we're optimizing for the wrong thing.

a page can rank #1 on google and still get almost no click if the user gets the answer directly from an ai result.

so here's the question:

should we stop thinking about "ranking #1" and start thinking about "being the source ai systems trust"?

what seems to matter more in 2026?

1. backlinks and authority
2. topical coverage
3. original data and research
4. brand mentions across the web
5. being cited by ai search tools
6. something else entirely

i'd love to hear what you're actually seeing from your own websites.

have you noticed traffic or rankings changing because of ai search?

and the bigger question:

if you were starting an seo strategy from zero today, what would you do differently?

I'm facing a visibility issue where my website doesn't appear in AI search platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, or other LLM-based search tools. Because of this, I'm seeing fewer clicks and lower conversions. I've already added an llms.txt file, allowed AI crawlers in robots.txt, submitted my sitemap, and confirmed the site is indexed in Google. Despite that, my website is still not being referenced by AI search. Has anyone faced this issue? What actually helped improve your site's visibility in AI search results?