AEO & GEO services.
Give AI answers a better source.
Help people find an accurate account of what your business does when they search with AI. WebXd’s answer engine optimization and generative engine optimization services connect buyer questions to useful public information. The work brings together source pages, business facts, and a clear record of how answers represent your organization.
A useful starting point is a question your team hears often and a page that should answer it. We define what needs to be clearer, which sources need attention, and how to review the result. AI platforms choose their own responses and citations; inclusion remains outside your control.
- AEO
- Answer engine optimization
- Clear, direct responses to real questions
- GEO
- Generative engine optimization
- Useful source material for generated answers
- Shared work
- One practical scope
- Questions, facts, pages, and evidence
Choose the questions worth answering.
AEO and GEO are overlapping labels for improving how a business appears in answer-based discovery. Rather than build a separate program around each acronym, we agree on the questions and platforms that matter. A buyer comparing services needs different information from someone checking an existing product’s capabilities. The question map keeps those needs distinct.
We start with sales conversations, support themes, and relevant search research. Questions are grouped by the decision they support, with a likely source page beside each one. Branded checks show how an assistant describes you. Unbranded checks explore a buyer’s wider options, so the review does not depend entirely on prompts that already name your business.
| Decision | Example question | Source to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Understand suitability | Can teams schedule across time zones? | Feature explanation |
| Compare approaches | Shared calendar or scheduling tool? | Comparison guide |
| Check a constraint | Does it connect to our calendar? | Integration documentation |
Give a useful answer somewhere to point.
Consider a fictional scheduling product called Fieldnote. Its page says that it makes teamwork easier, but a buyer wants to know whether colleagues in different time zones can book together. The revision explains whose availability is used, how time zones are displayed, and which calendar connections are supported. Each detail needs confirmation from the product team.
The answer should stand on its own while preserving the context that makes it accurate. We place the direct explanation near the relevant heading, then provide limitations and supporting documentation. Where a statement changes with a plan or configuration, those conditions stay beside it. A short passage is useful only if it still tells the truth.
Original examples, documented methods, and specific product details give a page something useful to contribute. We identify where evidence is missing and who can supply it. Any schema added must describe the visible information. Google’s AI search guidance says no special schema or AI text file is required for its AI features.
Keep the same business recognizable across sources.
An assistant may encounter your organization through several public sources. Different product names, outdated service descriptions, or conflicting availability details can leave an unclear picture. We assemble a register of important facts and their approved source. The register helps your team distinguish a genuine change from an old description that needs correction.
Each entry names the fact, the page that owns it, and the person who can verify an update. We compare the website with relevant profiles, directories, and documentation. Changes to accounts you control can be scoped directly. For third-party publications, the plan records a correction request or a suitable contact route; editorial decisions stay with the publisher.
This work is also an opportunity to add substance where a business description is vague. A service page can explain who the service helps and the conditions under which it is offered. An author page can describe relevant experience that your team can substantiate. We avoid inventing credentials, reviews, or external mentions to make the business appear more established.
Illustrative register for fictional Fieldnote
- Product name
- Value or sourceFieldnote
- Approval ownerProduct owner
- Calendar support
- Value or sourceApproved integration page
- Approval ownerTechnical owner
- Plan limitations
- Value or sourceCurrent product documentation
- Approval ownerCommercial owner
- Public description
- Value or sourceWebsite and controlled profiles
- Approval ownerMarketing owner
Agree what can be discovered and read.
Source improvements depend on access to the relevant public information. We review crawler rules and hosting controls for the platforms in scope, with your publication preferences documented first. Google requires pages to be indexed and eligible for a search snippet to appear as supporting links in AI Overviews or AI Mode. Meeting those requirements does not guarantee selection.
OpenAI provides separate crawler controls for search and model training. OAI-SearchBot supports discovery in ChatGPT search, while GPTBot concerns potential training use. We review those decisions separately with your team. A permission change should reflect your content policy, and its effect needs verification against the current platform documentation.
If a wider indexing or template issue appears, we connect it to a defined technical SEO task. AEO and GEO work then focuses on the chosen questions and sources once that dependency is addressed. The scope records who changes the site, who reviews the content, and what evidence confirms that a fix is available publicly.
Google AI search
Indexing and snippet eligibilityCheck the intended source URLChatGPT search
OAI-SearchBot accessReview rules and hosting controlsModel training
Separate publisher preferenceDocument the decision explicitly
Review the answer with its conditions attached.
A repeatable review starts with a saved question set. We record the prompt wording, platform, date, and relevant location or account context alongside the response. The review distinguishes a brand mention from a citation to your page and checks whether the description is accurate. Repeating agreed checks helps expose variation that a single screenshot can conceal.
Platform reporting adds another view where it is available. Bing Webmaster Tools offers AI citation reporting across supported Microsoft and partner experiences, with preview tools for topics and comparisons. Google includes its AI feature traffic in Search Console’s Web reporting. Neither view should be presented as a complete record of every assistant response.
A cited page does not prove a visit, and a visit does not prove a qualified inquiry. We review available referral and conversion information alongside the answer record, noting gaps in attribution. Changes to the source pages are logged as well. The combined record informs the next content decision without claiming that one edit caused every change in visibility.
An answer-review record
- Question and context
- Exact wording, platform, date
- Observed answer
- Saved response and source URLs
- Accuracy review
- Correct facts, omissions, conditions
- Next action
- Source edit, owner, review point
Start with a source you can improve.
A focused engagement can cover one product or service, a defined question group, and the public pages that support it. The deliverables can include a question map, source revisions, a fact register, and an answer-review record. We agree on implementation and follow-up responsibilities in the proposal. Wider publishing plans belong in content strategy.
A focused scope can include
- A question set tied to buyer decisions
- Source-page edits with evidence and conditions
- A fact register with approval owners
- An access review for selected platforms
- A dated answer record and next actions
Can you guarantee that AI will recommend us?
No. Platforms decide what they retrieve and include, and responses can vary between runs. We can agree on source improvements and review how your business appears under documented conditions. The scope should make that work assessable while keeping a mention, a citation, and a recommendation distinct.
Do we need new pages for every prompt?
Usually the first step is to examine the pages you already have. Several questions may belong on one useful source page, while a separate topic may need its own explanation. We choose the structure around the reader’s task. Repeating near-identical pages for slight prompt variations adds maintenance without necessarily adding useful information.
What determines cost and timing?
The number of source pages, products, markets, and platforms affects the scope. Access to documentation and subject experts matters, as does the approval process for factual changes. We define the delivery schedule after reviewing those dependencies. Publication and checking can be planned; an AI platform’s response schedule cannot be promised.
Can our team handle implementation?
Yes, implementation can be divided between your team and WebXd. The handoff identifies the source URL, proposed change, supporting fact, and verification step. We agree who approves each statement and who maintains the fact register. Review frequency and any monitoring tools are scoped separately so responsibilities remain clear.