Edip Kilinc is the founder of Webwavers. Together with his team, he develops websites, brands, and digital presences for ambitious companies – with over 250 completed projects, and honored with awards including the German Design Award 2026.
SEO aims for a position in a search results list. GEO – Generative Engine Optimization – aims to be cited as a source in a generated response.
Different goals, same prerequisite. Both require:
Accessible pages. Not blocked, not set to noindex, included in the sitemap.
Content in the HTML. What is only created via JavaScript is seen by search engines with a delay, and usually not at all by the retrieval tools of generative systems.
Clear structure. One H1, meaningful subheadings, one topic per page.
Complete answers. Content that answers a question conclusively rather than beating around the bush.
Recognizable authorship. Author, date, organization – as visible information and in structured markup.
That's about eighty percent of the work, and it benefits both. Anyone who works through these points has not chosen between SEO and GEO, but has prepared for both.
SEO aims for a position in a search results list. GEO – Generative Engine Optimization – aims to be cited as a source in a generated response.
Different goals, same prerequisite. Both require:
Accessible pages. Not blocked, not set to noindex, included in the sitemap.
Content in the HTML. What is only created via JavaScript is seen by search engines with a delay, and usually not at all by the retrieval tools of generative systems.
Clear structure. One H1, meaningful subheadings, one topic per page.
Complete answers. Content that answers a question conclusively rather than beating around the bush.
Recognizable authorship. Author, date, organization – as visible information and in structured markup.
That's about eighty percent of the work, and it benefits both. Anyone who works through these points has not chosen between SEO and GEO, but has prepared for both.
The remaining twenty percent are specific.
Only relevant for SEO: Backlinks as a ranking factor, loading time as a ranking signal, click-through rate from the search results, local signals for map results, technical nuances like pagination and canonicals.
Only relevant for GEO: The structure of individual paragraphs, because the unit of citation is the paragraph and not the page. Mentions on third-party sites, because models rely heavily on what others write about a brand. And the question of whether AI crawlers are even allowed.
A difference in measurement: SEO success is visible in the Search Console. GEO success is nowhere to be found – it must be gathered manually through regular prompt testing.
A difference in impact: SEO brings clicks. GEO often only brings mentions. These are still valuable because they lead to later brand searches – they are just not instantly measurable.
Anyone starting from scratch should begin with SEO. Three reasons why.
The foundation is the same. Without indexable, readable, structured content, GEO won't work anyway. The first few weeks of SEO work are also GEO work.
The volumes speak for themselves. Even in 2026, the vast majority of search traffic will come from traditional search results. The share of traffic from AI services is in the single-digit percentage range for most companies. It is growing, but from a small base.
It is measurable. SEO can be tracked in the Search Console with real numbers. GEO can only be estimated through random sampling. Anyone starting with the measurable can justify their decisions.
This doesn't mean ignoring GEO. It means working in a sequence where each step builds on the previous one.
Stage 1 – Foundation. Indexability, sitemap, HTML test, one H1 per page, titles and descriptions. Affects both. Effort: two to four weeks.
Stage 2 – Structure. One page per topic instead of collection pages. Internal linking. Structured data for Organization, Article, and BreadcrumbList. Affects both.
Stage 3 – Content. Answering the questions your customers ask. With numbers, ranges, and conditions. Creating paragraphs so they are understandable on their own. Affects both, with a slight bias towards GEO.
Stage 4 – Off-page. Mentions, directories, specialist articles, comparison lists. Affects both – as a backlink for SEO, as a mention for GEO.
Stage 5 – Fine-tuning. Load time, click-through rates, local signals for SEO. Prompt measurement and paragraph structure for GEO.
Only at the final stage do the paths truly diverge.
Only SEO. Anyone who optimizes exclusively for positions overlooks the fact that a growing portion of questions is answered without a click. Impressions remain, but clicks decrease – a pattern that has been visible in many Search Console data sets since 2024. Anyone who then only works on the position is working on the wrong thing.
Only GEO. The newer and more expensive mistake. Anyone who considers classic search to be done for is giving up the channel that still brings in the most visitors – and is building on one whose rules change every few months and which has so far delivered small numbers.
In addition: Anyone who wants to be visible to generative systems must be found by them. And what is found is also what is easily discoverable in the classic way. The two cannot be cleanly separated.
The sober stance: It is one job with two evaluations, not two disciplines.
For a company that wants to become more visible next year, a viable breakdown looks like this:
About seventy percent of the effort into things that affect both: structure, content, metadata, structured data, internal linking, external mentions.
About twenty percent into classic SEO: technical fine-tuning, loading time, local visibility, click-through rates.
About ten percent into GEO-specifics: paragraph building, monthly prompt measurement, targeted presence in comparison lists.
This distribution shifts as usage behavior shifts. It is not a law, but a snapshot.
What does not shift: The starting point is always the same question. Does your website answer the questions your customers actually ask – completely, concretely, and in a way that a machine can read it? Anyone who can answer yes to this does not have to choose between the two abbreviations.
