But there are typical issues that can be checked on a page. This is not a guide on “how to guarantee appearing in AI”, but a diagnostic framework I would use to start a GEO audit.
1. The page does not answer a specific question
An article may focus on the right topic without addressing the user’s actual task. For example, someone asks how to choose double-sided tape for outdoor work, while the page discusses all types of tape. The information is relevant, but there is no specific answer.
The check is simple: formulate the user’s question and find a direct answer on the page. If the conclusion has to be assembled from several sections, the content should be improved. For SEO, this is a matter of search intent; for GEO, it is also a matter of how clearly the answer is presented.
2. Too many general statements
“High quality”, “innovative technologies”, and “individual approach” say almost nothing without specifics. Instead of saying “the material is suitable for challenging conditions”, it is more useful to specify which conditions are meant, which characteristics matter, and what limitations exist.
A good test: can the phrase be replaced with a specific fact, example, or explanation? If so, do it.
3. Claims are not supported
The more important the claim, the clearer its source should be. Official documents, studies, regulatory materials, manufacturer documentation, statistics, or the company’s own data can all be used for this purpose.
This is also useful for AI search, where users may be shown the sources behind an answer. But do not turn this into a formula of “more links = more citations”. There is no universal correlation of this kind.
4. The page is poorly structured
Even strong content is difficult to use if it consists of one large block of text. H1 indicates the topic, H2 headings divide the main questions, and H3 headings help раскрыть individual aspects. Lists are convenient for criteria, tables for comparisons, and definitions for terms.
A useful principle: the answer should be located next to the question. At the same time, the right H2, Schema markup, or a separate HTML tag does not by itself guarantee inclusion in an AI answer.
5. The website lacks topical context
A single article does not always cover a broad topic. If a website discusses choosing industrial tape, it may also need content on surface preparation, types of adhesive layers, operating conditions, and common mistakes.
This is topical coverage: a website consistently answers related questions, and its pages complement one another. There is no need to create dozens of articles for the sake of volume: it is more important to cover real subtasks and link the content together. Яндекс directly describes Нейро as a system that can break down a complex question, find relevant materials, and combine them into a single answer.
6. The page is technically inaccessible
Before rewriting the content, I would check whether the relevant system can access the page at all. Are robots.txt and noindex preventing access? Is authentication required? Does the server return HTML correctly? Is the main content available to the crawler?
For ChatGPT, there is a specific consideration: OpenAI uses OAI-SearchBot, and blocking it may prevent content from being included in ChatGPT Search results. At the same time, allowing it to crawl the site does not guarantee that the page will appear in an answer.
7. It is unclear why the source can be trusted
Expertise can easily be reduced to a formality: add an author, job title, and photo, and consider the task complete. That is not the point. Readers should understand who created the material, how the author is connected to the topic, and what the conclusions are based on.
For different projects, evidence may include original research, real case studies, technical documentation, or verifiable experience of specialists. E-E-A-T is better understood as a matter of information quality and reliability, rather than a set of mandatory blocks.
8. Weak external context
External links should not be turned into a KPI for the sake of having a KPI. It is more important to understand who mentions the site, how closely the source is related to the topic, and whether the company's materials are used as primary information.
Relevant mentions may contribute to the site's overall authority, but their specific weight when AI systems select sources is not publicly disclosed. That is why the goal of “getting a hundred links for GEO” looks weaker than improving the quality of the source itself.
9. The content is outdated
Outdated data is particularly dangerous in materials about prices, products, technologies, legislation, and search engines. Changing the publication date does not change anything: characteristics, documents, links, and recommendations need to be rechecked.
Recency also matters because ChatGPT Search and Yandex Neuro work with information from the internet. But a recent update date alone does not guarantee citation.
10. We optimize the page for AI instead of the user
Here, GEO can easily repeat old SEO mistakes. People start adding artificial questions to the page, repeating entities, creating “for AI model” blocks, and trying to guess which wording the model will like.
I would start with a different question: does the page contain information worth citing at all? If it provides a specific answer, facts, sources, original data, and up-to-date information, the material already has a solid foundation.
Google explicitly recommends people-first content and states that AI Overviews and AI Mode do not require special GEO techniques or separate markup. At the same time, Google recommends following standard SEO practices: crawlability, a clear structure, internal links, and useful, reliable content.
How to check a page that does not appear in AI answers
I would check five things: what question the page answers and whether it provides a direct answer; whether it contains enough specifics and facts; whether the sources and origin of key claims are clear; whether the relevant passage is easy to find and the data is up to date; whether the page is accessible to robots and linked to other relevant materials.
If all of this is in order, you can decide what to change. Sometimes a new structure is needed, sometimes a few targeted edits, and sometimes the problem is not with the text at all.
SEO and GEO: what to do first
I would not create a ranking of ten “AI factors.” There is not enough reliable public data for such a hierarchy. In practice, it makes more sense to move from the fundamentals to external signals: first check search intent and content, then evidence and structure, followed by topical connections and technical accessibility, and only then external context and authority.
This is not an official hierarchy of Google, OpenAI, or Yandex. It is a diagnostic sequence that helps avoid spending time on external signals while the page itself provides a poor answer to the user's question.
FAQ
No. A position in classic search results and presence in an AI answer are different things, while ChatGPT's source selection algorithms have not been fully disclosed publicly.
Not necessarily. The core task remains the same: give the user an accurate, useful, and verifiable answer. A separate “version of the article for AI models” does not in itself guarantee citation.
They can help search engines understand certain types of content, but are not a guaranteed way to get into an AI answer. They should be used where they match the page content.
First, technical accessibility: can ChatGPT access the page, is OAI-SearchBot blocked, and are there any other restrictions. Then move on to content, structure, and sources.
Conclusion
If a site does not appear in AI answers, do not immediately look for a “secret GEO factor”. Start with simpler questions: does the page address a specific task? Does it contain facts and sources? Is the information up to date? Is it clear who is responsible for it? Can a search crawler access it properly? Is there topical context around it?
If all of this is in order, the page has a good foundation for AI search. What remains is something that cannot be fully controlled: the specific system chooses sources for each specific answer, and its algorithms are only partially known.
Therefore, GEO's goal is not to force AI to choose a particular page. It is much more practical to make the material useful, clear, specific, and well-supported. Then it has real grounds to become a source for an AI answer.
