About this worked example
The publisher on this page is made up. We do not publish customer names, customer numbers, or customer quotes.
The scoring is real. Every metric name and every weight below comes straight from the GEO-Score engine that runs your analysis.
So the publisher is imaginary. The maths is not. Run the same analysis on one of your own articles and you get real numbers back.
Why publishers have a different problem
Scale works against you
A shop has hundreds of pages. A publisher has thousands. You cannot hand-fix an archive, so the fix has to live in the article template and the style guide.
Being used is not being cited
AI engines summarise news constantly. The question is whether your name and link appear next to the summary. Attribution is what turns a crawl into traffic.
Bylines get stripped
Many news templates show a date and a category but no author credentials. That removes the strongest expertise signal a publisher has.
Opinion is hard to quote
AI engines prefer checkable statements. A piece with figures, named sources, and links gives them something to stand behind. A pure opinion column does not.
The starting point
Picture a technology news site with a few thousand articles and a small newsroom. Articles are well written and properly reported.
Search traffic is healthy. But AI assistants summarise the same stories without naming the site, so none of that visibility comes back as readers.
The editor runs a GEO analysis on a recent article. The report splits the score into 22 metrics, which makes it obvious that the problem is not the journalism.
For publishers the weak spots are usually presentation and proof: how the article is structured, whether the author is identified, and whether claims are linked to sources.