How does useful GEO differ from fabricated promotion?
Useful GEO organizes real business information into public material buyers can verify. Invented customers, fake evaluations, fabricated rankings and modified screenshots create risks for buyers and the company, even if a name briefly appears in an answer.
EraSO starts with actual capabilities, conditions, evidence and permission to publish. Unverified statements are not facts, and planned capabilities are not delivered results.
Which practices do we reject?
| Practice | Why it is rejected |
|---|---|
| Invented cases, credentials, data, answers or screenshots | Cannot be verified and mislead decisions |
| Impersonating customers or independent media | Conceals identity and relationships |
| Fabricated rankings or unsupported attacks on competitors | Presents marketing opinion as objective fact |
| Unauthorized disclosure of client materials | Cooperation does not grant permission to disclose |
| Unconditional rankings, recommendations or sales guarantees | AI output and business outcomes are not controlled by the provider |
Why govern knowledge rather than only increase volume?
After a restaurant POS product changes, old articles may still describe discontinued features. Verify the edition and track which articles use each fact so corrections have clear targets. Volume-only distribution spreads the same error across channels.
Relationships and publishing records help locate affected content; they cannot erase every repost or old AI answer. Update controlled pages, request permitted third-party corrections and retest old claims.
How is a draft reviewed?
Verify facts and sources, then conditions, client permissions and misleading wording. Check the public page, links and publishing record. AI can assist drafting but is not sole evidence of qualifications, results or professional conclusions.
High-risk professional content needs appropriate review. Content labeling and distribution requirements depend on the applicable rules and platform; company statements are not third-party compliance certification.
How do we discuss results?
Separate completed work, mentions, official page citations, enquiries and sales. Retain agreed test records and explain next improvements. One favorable screenshot does not establish the same answer for every user.
Do all company materials become public?
No. Distinguish public introductions, project-only information, personal information and commercially sensitive materials. Confirm necessary use, access and public scope. Published content uses verified, permitted facts.
How are indicators defined?
| Observation | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Completed work | Agreed materials, content, pages, publishing and reports |
| Brand mention rate | Valid answers mentioning the brand divided by valid answers in the same scope |
| Description accuracy | Errors, omissions and conditions checked against confirmed facts with a stated method |
| Page citation rate | Valid answers displaying a source link to a specified page divided by valid answers in scope |
| AI share of voice | Brand mention count divided by all mentions in a defined brand set and counting rule |
| Business signals | Visits, enquiries and opportunities, distinguishing tracked, self-reported and unknown sources |
Failed requests or incomplete answers are reported separately, not treated as absence. Positive recommendation is distinct from a name appearing. Similar wording without a source link does not prove direct citation. AI share of voice is not market share.
How are before-and-after comparisons kept fair?
Keep the core question set and counting scope fixed. Record platform, mode, time, language and sampling rules. Explain model or condition changes. New questions enter a new version or exploratory group; do not remove unfavorable questions to manufacture improvement.
What happens when information changes?
Update facts and controlled pages, then use publishing records to handle other channels. Retest whether AI still cites old material. Record uneditable reposts and external update delays; do not promise immediate removal of all old answers.
Frequently asked questions
How should a team use this guide?
Inspect facts, relationships, public permissions, publishing records and comparable retests. These are working principles, not independent audit or certification.
What should a team avoid concluding from it?
We cannot withdraw every repost or erase old answers immediately. Specific tools, access, retention and responsibilities require project confirmation; this guide makes no unverified security promises.