Talk:Generative engine optimization

Vendors of Generative engine optimisation tools

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's fair. This is only further complicated by the AIO and AEO articles that also exist. Dflovett (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Search Engine Land as a source?

I have some questions about using SEL as a source post-Semrush acquisition. Especially in an article where Semrush was mentioned previously and could be mentioned again. However, maybe it depends on who the author of the given article is. Curious what other editors think. Dflovett (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dflovett: I don't think that's any reliable, but it's way better than the spam sources that are added every now and then. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. These pages are spam magnets. Dflovett (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Balkanization of Discovery

One of the article's citations has the provocative "Is SEO dead" title. Would it be more balanced to describe the current SEO, AEO, GEO milieu as entering a balkanization phase where multiple discovery/visibility strategies yield different coverage and results?Data-and-Facts (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think "SEO Is dead" is definitely not a narrative that should be included in this, as that's something that people have been saying for decades and will continue saying for decades. But if the citation in question is notable, it's okay to use it. I agree with you on the balkanization phase theory but not sure how best to capture that on here. I have attempted that on the search engine optimization article but that admittedly needs work as well. Dflovett (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Related articles redirected here

I've redirected answer engine optimization and artificial intelligence optimization to this article since they appear to be the same concept referred to using different names. AI SEO remains since it seems to be talking about enhancing existing SEO tactics with AI tools, not to optimize content for LLM consumption and retrieval. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

How did you choose this one as the survivor? I did notice the pageviews were higher on this than the other two and the search volume does look higher for "generative engine optimization" than the other two. I do think the answer engine optimization article itself was strong in some places and I will likely make a few edits to this article to strengthen it (artificial intelligence optimization was a mess and unsalvageable IMO.) Dflovett (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This article has the greatest citation to article content density, and is arguably more active. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. I am going to likely make some edits. Dflovett (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

One more thought. If AI SEO doesn't get redirected into this one, I think it could easily be absorbed into Search engine optimization Dflovett (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)