Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO): the SEO copywriter’s practical guide to getting cited (without wrecking your site)
More of us involved in content are being asked to “do GEO”. A lot of teams are realising that audiences are getting answers from AI interfaces that summarise the web, stitch together context and cite a handful of sources.
I know you’ll be surprised to hear that this god-awful image was generated by AI
But here’s the bit that matters from an SEO copywriter’s point of view:
As I sit here to write this, most of what people are calling Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO) is simply good SEO + good information design + stronger attribution. If your content is thin, vague, hard to crawl or hard to trust, you will struggle everywhere – Google, Bing and the AI answers layered on top of them.
So rather than treating GEO as a shiny new discipline, treat it like a priority shift: you’re optimising not just for ranking, but for being extracted accurately.
What GEO is (in a way copywriters can use)
Generative engines don’t “read” like humans. They:
interpret an intent (“what is X?”, “why did Y happen?”, “how do I compare A and B?”)
pull passages that look reliable and unambiguous
assemble a single response, sometimes with citations
That means GEO is less about “ranking signals” and more about selection signals. You’re trying to increase the odds that your page is:
Accessible (it can be fetched and parsed cleanly)
Understandable (entities, claims and context are clear)
Trustworthy (ownership, expertise, sources and updates are obvious)
Citable (key facts can be lifted without distortion)
If you’ve ever written copy that had to survive being quoted out of context… welcome to GEO!
The uncomfortable truth: citations don’t guarantee traffic
Even if you earn citations in AI answers, the click-through can be low. So the goal shouldn’t be “appear in AI at all costs”.
A more commercially sensible goal is:
be the source of record for the key facts in your niche
own the deeper detail users can’t get from a summary
make it frictionless to trust you when someone does land on your site
In other words: visibility is nice, but conversion still happens on your turf.
How SEO copywriting changes when you optimise for extraction
Traditional SEO writing often focuses on mapping keywords to pages, covering subtopics, satisfying intent, internal linking and on-page optimisation. GEO adds pressure on a different skill: writing that remains accurate when reduced, chunked, or paraphrased.
That pushes you towards crisp, self-contained sentences, explicit entities (names, organisations, locations), dated, sourced claims, clean separation of facts vs interpretation and formats that machines and humans can skim.
This is why “waffle” becomes expensive. The more your writing relies on implication, tone or buried context, the more likely a model is to compress it into something wrong.
The GEO playbook for SEO copywriters
1) Write “quote-ready” lines on purpose
If you want to be cited, you need passages that can be lifted cleanly.
A quote-ready line typically contains:
who/what (named entity)
what happened / what it is
when (date/time if relevant)
where (specific place if relevant)
why it matters (one clause, not a paragraph)
For example:
“On [date], [organisation] announced [action] in [location], aiming to [outcome], according to [primary source].”
This isn’t about making your whole article sound robotic. It’s about ensuring the key facts exist in a form that survives extraction.
2) Put the “definition” where it can be found quickly
A huge amount of AI answering is definitional.
If you publish explainers, comparisons or guidance, include a short definition high up:
What it is (one sentence)
Who it’s for / where it applies
What it isn’t (optional, but helps prevent hallucinated interpretations)
Example:
“Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO) is the practice of structuring and sourcing content so AI systems can extract and attribute information accurately.”
That one sentence does a lot of work.
3) Use formatting that supports skim-reading and machine parsing
You don’t need gimmicks. You need predictable structure.
Strong patterns:
H2s that reflect real sub-questions (“How it works”, “What to measure”, “Common mistakes”)
short paragraphs (2–4 lines)
bullets for lists of conditions, steps, inclusions/exclusions
comparison sections (even if you don’t use an actual table)
Why it works: you’re reducing ambiguity and making it easy to pull complete thoughts.
4) Turn vague claims into verifiable claims
Generative systems tend to favour content that looks checkable. So do humans, to be fair.
Upgrade:
“recently” → “in December 2025”
“a significant increase” → “up 18% year-on-year”
“experts say” → “according to [named organisation/report]”
Where you can, include:
the source name
the publication date
what the number refers to
units (%, £ etc.)
And then link to the primary source.
5) Treat links as evidence, not decoration
For GEO, outbound links can act like “receipts”.
When you reference:
legislation
regulators
official guidance
datasets
meeting minutes / reports
court documents
…link to them. Even if you summarise them perfectly, the link signals confidence and transparency.
Copywriters often underuse this because they worry about sending people away. The trade-off is worth it on pages designed to be the reference.
6) Build topical authority the boring way (it works)
If your site only touches a topic once, you look like a drive-by contributor. If you cover it consistently, you look like a specialist.
Practical ways to do that:
create a topic hub (one strong overview page + supporting articles)
interlink related pages with descriptive anchors (not “click here”)
keep a consistent naming convention for the topic (avoid five labels for the same thing)
refresh evergreen pages as the story changes
As an SEO copywriter, this is where you can genuinely lead: content architecture is half the game.
7) Make authorship and ownership impossible to miss
If a model is choosing between two similar explanations, the page with clearer trust signals often wins.
Minimum viable trust setup:
author name + bio (and why they’re qualified)
publication date and last updated date (when changes happen)
corrections policy (especially for publishers)
clear publisher/brand details (about page, contact, editorial standards)
This is “EEAT” in practice but applied to how extractive systems choose sources.
8) Don’t let technical debt sabotage your content
You can write the cleanest copy in the world and still be invisible if your pages are difficult to fetch or parse.
Common issues that hurt both SEO and GEO:
heavy client-side rendering that blocks content
inconsistent canonicals
messy indexation rules
broken internal linking
paywalls without clear signalling of what’s accessible
Structured data (schema) can help, but don’t treat it like a magic switch. In practice, clear headings and clean HTML often do more for extractability than fancy markup.
9) Be careful with “Best X” content and other cheap wins
Yes, list formats are easy to summarise. That’s exactly why they’re being abused.
From a long-term SEO + brand perspective, “best” pages can backfire if they:
feel self-serving (“we’re #1!”)
lack transparent criteria
are stuffed with affiliate-style padding
get thin quickly as competitors do the same thing
If you write them, make them defensible:
state criteria
explain methodology
update regularly
include genuine downsides and trade-offs
Trust is harder to win back than a citation is to earn.
A simple template you can steal for GEO-friendly pages
Intro (40–80 words): definition + who it’s for + what the reader will learn
Key facts box (optional): 4–6 bullets with dates, entities, numbers
H2: What it is (one clear paragraph)
H2: Why it matters (tie to outcomes)
H2: How it works (steps, bullets, examples)
H2: Evidence and sources (what to cite, what to avoid)
H2: Common mistakes (misattribution, vague claims, unclear terms)
H2: Checklist (publish-ready)
This structure is good for humans and highly extractable.
GEO and voice: you don’t have to write like a manual
A legitimate fear is that optimisation makes everything sound the same. It doesn’t have to.
The trick is to separate fact-bearing lines (tight, explicit, citable) and voice and analysis (your style, your insight, your angle). Let the “facts” be clean and sturdy. Put your personality in the interpretation, examples and framing.
A GEO checklist for copywriters and editors
Before you hit publish, scan for:
Does the page define the topic early, in one sentence?
Are key entities named (people, organisations, locations)?
Are time-sensitive claims dated?
Are numbers sourced and explained?
Are facts clearly separated from opinion/analysis?
Can someone quote a section without needing missing context?
Do headings reflect real questions users ask?
Are primary sources linked where relevant?
Is authorship obvious and credible?
Is this page connected internally to a wider topic cluster?
If you can tick most of these, you’re doing GEO – whether you call it that or not!
Hi, I’m Katy and SEO copywriter and AI humaniser.
If you’re using AI to generate content, I can make it sound more human (so it actually converts!)
