This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
The two vendors of tools listed on this page seems rather limited. I think it would benefit from a list of current vendors, but before I do that, I wanted to get some feedback. It would be good to look at categorising as different tools have different features. I don't want to make this a catalog of vendors, but I do think the current article is inadequate. Any thoughts? MikeMaynardUK (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the article would benefit from more discussion of companies that are successfully implementing GEO. Semrush is developing GEO, its primary strength and focus are still SEO. I dont think it is the best example without mentioning that. I recently added Evertune AI, which is one of the more successful and innovative companies in this field, but that content was removed as "spammy". At the moment, the article itself is still very underdeveloped—it’s rated C-class by who?, has just a few sources, and contains several “citation needed” tags.
I don’t have the capacity right now to create a comparative chart, but I can try to rewrite that section in a more neutral, well-sourced way. You’re welcome to do the same. Which companies are you most familiar with? I would also consider Profound as a candidate for inclusion, I would think there is sourcing for that. Kristopher9 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think a chart would be dangerous. Probably best to just list a few examples. I don't think Wikipedia is best served as a place where people can comparison shop. Unless I'm misunderstanding the premise. Dflovett (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree now after watching the article, It is a spam magnet and the chart would be misused with every little startup entering their name. Kristopher9 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it should mention Semrush, Ahrefs, Profound, Scrunch, and Peec. But honestly, I see an argument for it naming even more than that. Mostly drawing on my industry knowledge paired with where I see it being mentioned. Dflovett (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to put in Evertune AI, but the spam was just so bad that I thought to not start something. Bluefish is an ok example, though it looks like it their article was deleted, and I also was thinking Profound. Semrush needs to be explained as it is still primarily SEO, but when I tried to qualify which product they had that was GEO, it was taken as spam. I went in and tried to source everything without naming anyone, just to help, but the editors have a point in deleting everything. It is not the time. Kristopher9 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few out there, the current examples are misleading, as Semrush is mainly SEO focused. A more up to date or accurate representation would be very helpful.--~2026-36833-9 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make a responsible, sourced edit about this, but it was reversed. The problem is that new startups are constantly inserting their names into the article, so the good content is getting reverted along with the bad. My rewrite explained the role of Semrush, which was developing SEO, and then added a couple of the more prominent dedicated GEO companies, along with the already-listed Bluefish AI. However, the editor seemed to think I was promoting Semrush and reverted it. This is an important topic that is currently very messy. Kristopher9 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where third-party coverage is important. Like, a few good reliable articles that have no association with any of the tools that also list all the tools are going to be the best way to determine what should be listed. I don't think it makes sense currently for Bluefish AI and Semrush to be the only two listed, but I'm not ready to make the edits yet. Dflovett (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
