Knowledge hub

Guides on SEO, GEO and AI visibility

Practical, source-checked guides for the parts of modern visibility that can actually be observed: crawl access, indexability, structured data, entity clarity, topical coverage, AI mentions and cited URLs. The hub separates documented search guidance from emerging GEO practice, and avoids invented AI ranking claims.

1 guides
No scores observations only

The current model

SEO helps pages become discoverable, crawlable, indexable and understandable.
GEO improves clarity for retrieval and grounding, but cannot force mentions or citations.
LLM visibility is measured as observed mentions and cited URLs under recorded prompts and provider conditions.

The words matter

Seven different things, often treated as one

Each step below is a separate event with a separate cause. None of them makes the next one happen. Most bad advice in this field comes from collapsing two of them together.

Crawled A bot fetched the URL. On its own, nothing follows from this.
Indexed A search engine stored the page and may return it. Being crawled does not get you here.
Retrieved The page was pulled into the working context for one specific question.
Used Its content shaped the answer, whether or not the reader can tell.
Mentioned Your brand or site is named in the answer text.
Cited A specific URL of yours is shown as a source the reader can follow.
Recommended The answer tells the reader to choose you. Rarer than a citation, and not something markup produces.

Updated baseline

What changed in search and AI visibility

Search fundamentals still carry the weight

Google documents no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, and no special markup or AI text file to add. That is Google speaking about its own AI features, not a general law about answer engines, but it does mean the work starts with ordinary search fundamentals.

Grounding and citation are eligibility, not entitlement

Being crawlable, indexable and clearly written is what makes a page eligible to be retrieved and quoted. None of it obliges any system to mention you. No provider documents how grounding selection actually works, and anyone who tells you otherwise is guessing.

Crawler policy now depends on purpose

Operators now run separate agents for search indexing, for training corpora, for ad safety checks and for fetches a person triggers in a chat window. Each needs its own robots.txt rule, and a user-triggered agent may not consult robots.txt at all, so one blanket line rarely says what you mean.

Measurement is observation, not a rank

Mention rate, citation rate and share of voice mean something only when the prompt set, provider, model version, date, denominator and cited URLs are all recorded. A single AI answer is not a ranking report.

Everything, newest first

The whole library in publication order, for anyone who would rather browse than be guided.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

Published September 10, 2026

Start here

How these are written

Primary documentation first, every claim carrying the strength of the evidence behind it, and a review date plus a source-check date on every guide.

Editorial policy

What you will not find here

A ranking position in an AI assistant. There is no such number to report.
A promise that markup, llms.txt or an allowed crawler produces a citation.
robots.txt described as a security control. RFC 9309 says plainly that it is not access authorisation.
A benchmark figure we did not observe ourselves under recorded conditions.

Primary sources

The documentation these guides are checked against. Where a provider has not documented something, the guides say so instead of filling the gap.