Citation tracking
Recorded prompts run against each model on a schedule, so change is visible.
GEO Agency
A GEO agency that can show you the citations.
A generative engine optimization agency for brands worldwide. Getting cited inside ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini answers is measurable work with real levers, and it is also a field full of people selling guarantees nobody can honestly make.
A GEO agency works on whether large language models mention and cite your brand when someone asks them a question in your category. This is not conventional SEO with a new label: an LLM assembles an answer from its training data, its retrieval sources, and what it can crawl at query time, so the levers are entity clarity, corroboration on sources the models actually trust, and machine-readable content. Logical Dot Tech runs GEO for clients worldwide and reports on tracked citations rather than on impressions.
How an LLM decides who to mention
When someone asks an assistant for the best option in your category, three things determine whether you appear. What the model absorbed during training, which is fixed until the next training run. What it retrieves live from search when it decides to look something up. And how confidently it can identify you as a distinct entity rather than a name it has seen once.
Only the last two are influenceable in any reasonable timeframe, which is why credible GEO work concentrates there. Anyone claiming they can change what a model already learned during training is describing something that does not work that way.
The levers that actually move citations
In rough order of impact for a business that is not already a household name:
- Corroboration elsewhere: being described consistently on sites the models retrieve from.
- Entity clarity: one unambiguous identity, so you are not conflated with a similar name.
- Quotable formatting: claims stated plainly enough to lift into an answer without rewriting.
- Crawler permission: AI user agents allowed rather than blocked by an old robots rule.
- Comparison content: pages that answer the shortlist question the user is actually asking.
Measuring something that has no rank tracker
There is no Search Console for ChatGPT. That absence is exactly why the field attracts vague claims, so the first thing we build is measurement: a fixed set of prompts a real buyer would type, run against each model on a schedule, with the answers stored.
That gives a baseline and a trend. You can see whether you were mentioned, whether you were cited with a link, which competitors appeared instead, and how it moves. It is not as precise as rank tracking and it is far better than an agency asserting that visibility improved.
| What we track | How | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
| Mention rate | Fixed prompts run per model on a schedule | Whether you appear at all |
| Citation with link | Whether the answer links to your domain | Whether you get the traffic too |
| Competitor share | Who is named instead of you | Realistic gap to close |
| Source pages cited | Which URLs models actually quote | Where to invest next |
| Answer accuracy | Whether what it says about you is correct | Reputation risk, separate from volume |
What no honest GEO agency will promise
Model behaviour changes without notice, answers vary between users and sessions, and no vendor has a control panel for what an assistant says. Anyone offering guaranteed placement in ChatGPT is selling something they cannot deliver.
What is genuinely deliverable: a measured baseline, the technical and entity work that demonstrably improves citation odds, correction of wrong information the models currently repeat about you, and honest reporting including the months where nothing moved.
Who this suits
GEO is worth funding where your buyers have started asking assistants before they search, which varies sharply by category.
- B2B and SaaS brands whose buyers ask assistants for shortlists.
- Companies being described inaccurately by AI assistants right now.
- Categories where a competitor is consistently named and you are not.
- Businesses already ranking well in Google but invisible in AI answers.
What's included
Everything you get, in one engagement.
Entity consistency
One unambiguous description of who you are, identical everywhere it appears.
Third-party corroboration
Presence on the sources models lean on, since your own site alone convinces nothing.
Crawler access
Making sure GPTBot, PerplexityBot, and ClaudeBot are not blocked by your robots.txt.
llms.txt and structure
A machine-readable summary of what you do, and content formatted to be quotable.
Share of voice by model
Where you appear versus competitors, tracked separately per assistant.
How we work
A process that ships, not just plans.
01
Discover
We dig into your goals, market, and data to find the highest-leverage move.
02
Design
Strategy and architecture mapped before a line of code or a dollar of spend.
03
Build & Launch
We ship in tight sprints with weekly demos you can actually see.
04
Scale
We measure, optimize, and compound results month over month.
Good to know
Common questions.
GEO is about being cited inside a generated answer from an assistant like ChatGPT or Perplexity, where the model composes prose and may name sources. AEO is about winning the structured answer slots in conventional search: featured snippets, People Also Ask, and voice results. Different surfaces, overlapping technical work, different measurement.
No, and nobody can. Model behaviour changes without notice and answers vary between sessions. What we can do is measure where you stand today, do the work that improves the odds, and report honestly on movement including when there is none.
We define a set of prompts a real buyer would type, run them against each model on a fixed schedule, and store the answers. That yields mention rate, citation rate, competitor share, and which of your pages get quoted. It is a baseline and a trend rather than a precise rank, and it is the honest version of measurement here.
No, and treating it as a replacement is a mistake. Assistants retrieve heavily from conventional search, so ranking well remains one of the strongest inputs to being cited. GEO is an additional layer for a new surface, not a substitute for the foundation underneath it.
It is cheap and low risk, so usually yes, but keep expectations proportionate. Adoption across models is still inconsistent and it is not the lever that decides whether you get cited. Entity clarity and third-party corroboration matter considerably more. We add it as part of the work rather than selling it as the work.
Often, and it is usually the most urgent GEO work there is. Models repeat what the sources they trust say, so the fix is correcting the underlying sources and publishing unambiguous, well-structured information yourself. It takes time to propagate, and it is more tractable than most people assume.
Retrieval-driven improvements, where the model looks things up live, can appear within weeks of the underlying content and access changes. Anything depending on training data moves on the models' own schedule, which is outside anyone's control. We report both separately so you know which is which.
Ready to get started?
Book a free 30-minute call and we'll map the first step.