LLM SEO: Get AI Crawled and Ranked in 2025 - Go Fish Digital
Request Proposal Toggle Menu

AI seo

LLM SEO: Get AI Crawled and Ranked in 2025

LLM SEO: Get AI Crawled and Ranked in 2025 featured cover image

LLM SEO is the practice of optimizing your site for knowledge capture inside large language models. Unlike traditional SEO, which focuses on ranking in blue-link results, LLM SEO ensures your content is structured, accessible, and fact-dense enough to be absorbed, grounded, and reused by generative engines. In Google’s ecosystem, this means preparing content for Gemini-2.5-flash, which powers AI Overviews, and Gemini-2.5-pro, which powers AI Mode. These models don’t just crawl pages—they capture passages, entities, and structured data to rebuild knowledge graphs and generate answers. If your content isn’t optimized for this process, your expertise and brand authority risk being excluded from the AI-driven conversations that increasingly shape how users discover and trust information.

Key Takeaways

  • What are the best ways to do LLM SEO? LLM SEO is about making your expertise capturable by AI engines—structuring your content so it can be retrieved, grounded, and cited in generative answers. Success is measured not just by clicks, but by how often your pages are reused inside AI Overviews, AI Mode, or ChatGPT outputs.
  • What are the best technical SEO components of LLM SEO? Technical SEO for LLMs ensures your site is machine-readable at scale. This includes removing render-blocking issues, maintaining accessible URLs, accurate sitemaps with timestamps, strong taxonomies, structured data feeds, and ensuring AI crawlers like GPTBot or ClaudeBot can access your content. If crawlers can’t capture your data, LLMs won’t reuse it.
  • What are the best on-page SEO components of LLM SEO? On-page LLM SEO emphasizes extractability and clarity. Use structured headings, bullet lists, FAQs, fact-dense passages, and clear recency signals. Go beyond keywords by covering ICP-driven questions and adjacent queries generated in query fan-out. Every page should read as if a passage could be lifted directly into an AI answer.

Technical SEO for LLMs

Technical SEO for LLMs is crucial because large language models are, at their core, engines of knowledge capture. They rely on crawling, indexing, and grounding mechanisms to absorb content and decide which passages, facts, and entities are worth reusing in generative answers. If your site isn’t technically accessible, properly structured, and machine-readable, LLMs can’t capture your knowledge. Meaning, your expertise, data, and brand authority are excluded from the very systems shaping how users discover and trust information.

Introduction: Key AI Crawlers to Know

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity rely on a growing ecosystem of specialized crawlers and user agents. Unlike Googlebot or Bingbot, these crawlers often serve dual purposes. Some gather training data, while others fetch live content in real time to cite in generative answers. For technical SEO, understanding which agents are hitting your site—and how to manage them—is critical.

Crawler / User AgentPurpose
OpenAI GPTBot
GPTBot/1.0 (+https://openai.com/gptbot)
Main OpenAI crawler for collecting training data for ChatGPT and other models.
OpenAI ChatGPT-User
ChatGPT-User/1.0 (+https://openai.com/bot)
Fetches live webpages when a user asks ChatGPT a question requiring fresh info. Not used for training.
OpenAI OAI-SearchBot
OAI-SearchBot (+https://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites)
Supports real-time retrieval/indexing rather than training.
Anthropic ClaudeBot
ClaudeBot/1.0 (+claudebot@anthropic.com)
Main crawler for Anthropic’s Claude AI, collecting training data.
Anthropic anthropic-ai (deprecated)
anthropic-ai/1.0 (+http://www.anthropic.com/bot.html)
Legacy crawler once used for Claude model training.
PerplexityBot
PerplexityBot/1.0 (+https://docs.perplexity.ai/docs/perplexity-bot)
Crawls pages for inclusion and citation in Perplexity’s answers.

Here are some of the top technical SEO challenges for LLMs and what you should do to resolve them:

1. Render-Blocking Websites (JavaScript Challenges)

One of the biggest technical SEO issues for LLMs is JavaScript-heavy websites that block or delay rendering. Here’s why:

  • How Crawlers Work: AI crawlers and retrieval systems typically follow a two-step process:
    1. Initial Capture: They fetch the raw HTML and record the immediate text and markup.
    2. Re-Rendering: They attempt to execute JavaScript in a secondary render to rebuild the full page in their index.
  • The Problem: Many modern frameworks (React, Angular, Vue) rely heavily on client-side rendering. If key content, links, or structured data only appear after JavaScript executes, some crawlers struggle to rebuild the page accurately. This can result in missing or incomplete data captured by the LLM.
  • The Impact: When LLMs can’t reliably reconstruct your content, they fail to capture your knowledge—meaning your site is less likely to be used for grounding, citations, or passage inclusion in generative answers.
  • Best Practice: Ensure important content is available in the raw HTML or through server-side rendering (SSR), hydration, or pre-rendering. This makes it easier for both traditional search engines and LLM crawlers to process your pages correctly. If you’re unable to invest in server-side rendering (SSR), there are some newer practices coming to light around sending specific crawler agents to markdown pages that mimic a website’s content.

2. Accessible URLs and Internal Linking Architecture

Another critical technical SEO issue for LLMs is making sure your URLs are accessible and well-structured in the page source.

  • Why It Matters: Internal linking is more than just a user experience feature—it’s how crawlers understand your site’s hierarchy and distribute authority. For LLMs, accessible URLs in the source code help them map relationships between entities, pages, and topical clusters.
  • The Problem: When crawlers encounter long redirect chains, broken links, or inaccessible URLs, they burn through crawl resources without capturing useful content. This creates crawl budget bloat, where LLM crawlers waste time processing dead ends instead of indexing valuable knowledge.
  • The Impact: Poor URL accessibility makes it harder for crawlers to consistently rebuild the structure and authority of your site. Incomplete or inefficient crawling means your pages are less likely to be included in the knowledge that feeds generative answers.
  • Best Practice:
    • Use clean, direct internal links in the HTML source—avoid relying on JavaScript event-based navigation.
    • Minimize redirect chains; aim for a single hop when redirects are necessary.
    • Run regular crawl audits (e.g., Screaming Frog, Barracuda) to identify inaccessible URLs or crawl loops.
    • Ensure every important page is reachable within a few clicks, reinforcing your topical authority across clusters.

3. Sitemaps and Timestamp Accuracy

Sitemaps are still a cornerstone for AI crawler discoverability, and overlooking them creates major visibility gaps.

  • Why It Matters: Even though LLM crawlers and retrieval systems rely on advanced semantic matching, they still fall back on the core XML sitemap to understand which pages exist and how fresh they are. The <lastmod> field (timestamp) is especially important, as recency is one of the strongest ranking factors in AI search engines.
  • The Problem: Many sites publish incomplete or outdated sitemaps. Common issues include:
    • Missing or incorrect <lastmod> timestamps.
    • Outdated URLs that no longer exist.
    • Sitemaps split incorrectly, leaving sections of the site untracked.
    • Dynamically generated sitemaps that don’t refresh when content is updated.
  • The Impact: Without accurate timestamps, AI crawlers can’t reliably prioritize fresh vs. stale content. This reduces your chances of being selected for grounding and citation in time-sensitive AI Overviews or other generative answers.
  • Best Practice:
    • Always include <lastmod> values in XML sitemaps, reflecting the true last content update.
    • Automate sitemap generation so timestamps update with each content change.
    • Audit sitemaps regularly to remove broken or redirected URLs.
    • For large sites, ensure sitemap indexing (splitting into <50k URLs per file) and link the sitemap index in robots.txt.

4. Taxonomy and Site Hierarchy

For large-scale websites, taxonomy design isn’t just about navigation—it’s about how crawlers and LLMs reconstruct your site into a knowledge framework.

  • Why It Matters: AI crawlers don’t just capture individual pages; they attempt to rebuild your entire site hierarchy to understand how topics, entities, and categories connect. This rebuilt structure is then mapped against knowledge graphs, which LLMs use to generate contextual, fact-grounded answers.
  • The Problem: Poor taxonomy structures (overlapping categories, orphaned pages, inconsistent naming conventions) can prohibit crawlers from understanding topical depth and relationships. When taxonomy is unclear, LLMs may misrepresent your content or fail to surface it in generative responses.
  • The Impact: If crawlers can’t see how your content clusters together, your brand risks being underrepresented in AI Overviews and other generative SERP features. Inaccurate or shallow taxonomy reduces your authority signal within entity-rich search prompts.
  • Best Practice:
    • Design clear, hierarchical taxonomies that reflect logical relationships between categories, subcategories, and products/services.
    • Use consistent naming and labeling so crawlers can align terms with recognized entities in knowledge graphs.
    • Ensure taxonomy nodes (like category pages) are well-optimized with intro text, structured data, and internal links to support topical depth.
    • Regularly audit for orphaned or redundant taxonomy nodes that fragment your topical authority.

5. Robots.txt and AI Crawler Accessibility

A growing number of site owners are tempted to block AI crawlers in their robots.txt files, but this often does more harm than good.

  • Why It Matters: AI engines rely on crawlers like GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot to capture insights from your site. These crawlers power knowledge capture and determine whether your content is eligible to appear as citations or grounding in AI-generated answers. Blocking them may preserve your data, but it also eliminates your brand from being represented where users are increasingly discovering information.
  • The Problem: While some AI crawlers respect robots.txt (e.g., OpenAI’s GPTBot), others may partially ignore it. This has led to confusion and reactionary blocking. But the real issue isn’t AI stealing visibility—it’s brands voluntarily removing themselves from the conversation by shutting off access.
  • The Impact: If your site isn’t crawlable by AI engines, you lose citation opportunities, entity authority, and share of voice in AI-powered search features. At scale, this can mean falling behind competitors who allow their content to be used for grounding.
  • Best Practice:
    • Audit your robots.txt file to ensure AI crawlers are not being blocked unnecessarily.
    • Allow AI-accessible crawling to maximize inclusion in generative answers.
    • Use firewall or rate limiting only when managing crawl load, not to restrict visibility.
    • Balance access with governance: monitor which bots are hitting your site and confirm they’re legitimate (vs. spoofed traffic).

6. Page Packet Size

When it comes to AI crawlers, page packet size plays a different role than it does in traditional SEO.

  • Why It Matters: Crawlers for ChatGPT, Claude, and other LLMs are currently very aggressive in how they capture content. They often fetch the full payload of a page regardless of size, so packet weight doesn’t create immediate crawl waste the way it does with Googlebot.
  • The Problem: On smaller websites, oversized pages may not cause issues. But on large-scale enterprise websites, heavy packet sizes (bloated HTML, excessive scripts, oversized images) can slow down both human page experience and crawler efficiency. Over time, this makes it harder for AI crawlers to reprocess updates quickly and consistently.
  • The Impact: While packet size isn’t a primary blocker today, it does affect scalability of crawling and recency of captured content. For enterprise sites with millions of URLs, oversized payloads can create bottlenecks and delay how quickly updates are reflected in LLM training and live retrieval.
  • Best Practice:
    • Keep HTML lean—avoid unnecessary inline scripts and duplicated markup.
    • Compress and optimize images, video, and other large assets.
    • Use lazy loading for non-critical elements.
    • For enterprise sites, monitor average packet size at scale to ensure crawl efficiency.

7. Optimizing Native Assets (Images, PDFs, and More)

AI search engines don’t just process text—they’re increasingly adept at handling multimodal content, including images, PDFs, and other native assets. This makes asset optimization a crucial part of technical SEO for LLMs.

  • Why It Matters: LLMs and AI-powered search engines excel at reverse search scenarios. For example, a user might upload or describe an image of a product (like “blue running shoes with white soles”), and the AI system will attempt to match that to your content index. If your assets aren’t tagged correctly, your brand may never surface in these matches.
  • The Problem: Many enterprises treat PDFs, images, and videos as secondary content. Unoptimized file names (e.g., “IMG_1234.jpg”), missing alt tags, or lack of textual context around assets make it difficult for AI systems to connect them to entities, queries, and product categories.
  • The Impact: Without properly tagged and structured assets, your products and resources won’t align with AI grounding signals, reducing the chances of appearing in generative answers, image-based retrieval, or multimodal AI queries.
  • Best Practice:
    • Use descriptive file names (e.g., nike-air-zoom-blue-running-shoes.jpg instead of IMG_1234.jpg).
    • Add alt text that describes the asset contextually and includes entity-rich language.
    • Embed structured data (e.g., ImageObject, Product, MediaObject) to improve machine readability.
    • For PDFs and documents, ensure they are text-searchable (not just scanned images) and include metadata like title, description, and keywords.
    • Maintain an asset index sitemap (image/video sitemap) so crawlers can efficiently discover and reprocess updates.

8. The Use of llms.txt Files

The llms.txt file is a newer, experimental standard designed to give LLMs a curated overview of your site. Unlike XML-based files such as sitemaps, llms.txt is written in Markdown, with sections that can describe your project, link to important resources, and highlight which files are most relevant to language models. It’s located at /llms.txt in your site’s root directory.

  • Why It Matters: The concept behind llms.txt is to make it easier for LLMs to contextualize and interpret your site’s content during inference. For example, it can list documentation, key datasets, or even external resources that help an LLM answer questions more accurately. In this sense, it acts as a complement to robots.txt and sitemap.xml.
  • The Problem: There is no evidence that using llms.txt improves visibility or performance in AI Overviews or other AI-powered search features. Most AI crawlers, including OpenAI’s GPTBot and Anthropic’s ClaudeBot, continue to rely on the core XML sitemap for URL discovery and recency signals. Without proper <lastmod> timestamps in your sitemap, your llms.txt file won’t compensate.
  • The Impact: While harmless, relying on llms.txt as a primary SEO lever for LLMs is a misallocation of resources. At best, it may help future-proof your site for LLM-specific indexing if adoption grows. At worst, it adds overhead without measurable returns.
  • Best Practice:
    • Treat llms.txt as supplementary, not primary. Keep your XML sitemaps accurate and timestamped first.
    • Use llms.txt to provide curated, human-readable context (like key documentation or product guides) that could help LLMs interpret your domain.
    • Follow the llms.txt spec for formatting—Markdown headers, summaries, and optional file lists.
    • Audit accessibility of /llms.txt just as you would /robots.txt or /sitemap.xml.

9. Auditing for Structured Feeds

Structured data is one of the most reliable ways to help both traditional search engines and LLMs understand, ground, and reuse your content. For AI Overviews, AI Mode, and other generative search features, structured feeds ensure that crawlers can interpret entities, relationships, and key details at scale.

  • Why It Matters: LLMs rebuild site knowledge by connecting passages with structured entities. Schema.org markup, merchant feeds, and business feeds act like “labels” that make your site easier for crawlers to interpret, and they provide confidence for grounding answers. Without these signals, your content risks being treated as generic or ambiguous.
  • The Problem: Many enterprise websites either:
    • Implement Schema.org incorrectly (mismatched to on-page text).
    • Fail to update feeds (merchant catalogs, product feeds, business info) consistently.
    • Only mark up a handful of templates, leaving large sections of their site machine-blind.
  • The Impact: Incomplete or inaccurate structured feeds lead to missed citation opportunities in AI Overviews and other LLM-powered features. If crawlers can’t tie your page to the right entity or product feed, they’re less likely to reuse your content in generative answers.
  • Best Practice:
    • Audit Schema.org implementation across all core templates—FAQPage, HowTo, Product, Organization, LocalBusiness, Dataset.
    • Ensure structured data matches the visible text on each page.
    • Keep merchant feeds (pricing, availability, SKUs, imagery) and business feeds (hours, addresses, service areas) up to date.
    • Validate markup with Google’s Rich Results Test or enterprise-scale auditing tools.
    • Integrate structured feeds with your sitemap to reinforce consistency.

On-Page SEO for LLMs

When LLM crawlers finish capturing a site, the next stage is ranking and selection. Unlike traditional search engines, LLM-driven systems evaluate content through a generative pipeline. This involves expanding queries (query fan-out), testing semantic relevance, grounding against trusted sources, and prioritizing freshness before presenting an answer to the user.

StageWhat HappensWhy It Matters
Initial PromptA user query triggers retrieval.Sets the context for which passages will be evaluated.
Query Fan-OutThe system generates semantically related sub-queries.Expands coverage and tests for topical adjacency.
Semantic Relevancy AnalysisCandidate passages are compared to the expanded prompts.Ensures the best contextual match is identified.
Grounding MethodsPassages are validated against indices, structured feeds, and knowledge graphs.Provides factual alignment and credibility.
Recency ChecksPages with fresher timestamps or updates are favored.Helps prioritize the most up-to-date content.
User PresentationTop-scoring passages are synthesized into an AI-generated answer with citations.Determines visibility, brand inclusion, and user trust.

Here are some ways to optimize your pages for LLMs:

1. Structuring Pages for Knowledge Capture

For LLMs, not all pages are created equal—content needs to be structured in ways that make knowledge capture simple and extractable.

  • Why It Matters: Generative engines scan for passages that can be lifted and reused directly in AI answers. The easier it is for crawlers to parse and understand your content, the more likely it is to be semantically scored as useful and cited in AI Overviews or other AI-generated outputs.
  • The Problem: Many enterprise websites publish dense, unstructured blocks of text. Without clear headings, lists, or modular sections, crawlers struggle to isolate “answer-worthy” content. This reduces the chances of your passages being selected during retrieval and grounding.
  • The Impact: Pages that are not optimized for machine readability may be crawled but never reused. You risk missing citation opportunities even when your content is authoritative, simply because it wasn’t structured for extraction.
  • Best Practice:
    • Use rich text formatting—headings (H2/H3), tables, and callout boxes.
    • Break complex topics into bullet lists and numbered steps for quick extractability.
    • Write concise definition-style passages that can stand alone as answers.
    • Keep headings query-aligned so sub-sections map naturally to user prompts.
    • Audit pages for readability from both a human and machine perspective.

2. Auditing for Semantic Matching Signals

At the foundation of LLM retrieval is semantic matching—the process of connecting user queries (and their fan-out variations) to the closest aligned content. While advanced, these systems still lean heavily on basic semantic cues that live in your site’s metadata and markup.

  • Why It Matters: Titles, meta descriptions, headings, and keyword references inside structured data help crawlers interpret the primary intent of a page. Without these cues, your content may not be properly aligned with the query fan-out expansions that LLMs use to broaden user prompts.
  • The Problem: Many sites neglect metadata basics or treat them as “traditional SEO only.” Pages with missing or vague titles, thin meta descriptions, or schema markup without relevant keywords weaken their semantic footprint. This reduces visibility in both classic SERPs and generative AI answers.
  • The Impact: Poorly optimized metadata makes it harder for LLM crawlers to match your pages to expanded queries. Even if your content is strong, it can be overlooked during semantic relevancy analysis, meaning fewer citations in AI-powered results.
  • Best Practice:
    • Ensure every page has a unique, descriptive title aligned with the target query cluster.
    • Write concise meta descriptions that summarize the page with entity-rich language.
    • Use schema.org markup (e.g., FAQPage, Product, Article) with keyword-embedded properties to reinforce topical signals.
    • Align headings (H2/H3) with likely user prompts to increase query mapping.
    • Audit your site regularly to catch missing or duplicated metadata at scale.

3. Optimizing for Recency Signals

LLMs weigh freshness heavily when deciding what content to surface. Pages that clearly communicate when they were created, updated, or fact-checked give AI crawlers confidence that the information is current and reliable.

  • Why It Matters: AI Overviews, AI Mode, and ChatGPT often prioritize recency as a ranking factor. Without clear update signals, crawlers may treat your content as stale, even if the material is still relevant.
  • The Problem: Many websites don’t surface update signals at the on-page level. Outdated timestamps, missing revision notes, or unchanged “last updated” fields make it hard for crawlers to determine freshness. As a result, LLMs may favor competitor content that appears more current.
  • The Impact: Without visible recency signals, your content is less likely to be included in AI-generated answers. You risk losing share of voice to fresher pages, especially on fast-moving topics like regulations, pricing, or emerging technologies.
  • Best Practice:
    • Include a “last updated” date and “published on” date prominently on key pages.
    • Add revision notes or “fact-checked on” tags for data-heavy or authoritative pages.
    • Update statistics, case studies, and citations regularly to reinforce freshness.
    • Automate timestamp updates in your CMS when substantive changes are made.
    • Ensure recency signals are consistent across XML sitemaps, schema markup, and on-page displays.

4. Expanding Fact-Density with Unique Insights

LLMs prioritize fact-rich, information-dense content that provides more than surface-level coverage. Adding statistics, data points, and citations increases the likelihood that your passages will be selected, but the most valuable signal comes from the unique expertise you bring into the market.

  • Why It Matters: Google patents and AI retrieval systems reference information gain as a critical factor—rewarding content that adds new knowledge instead of repeating what already exists. Fact-dense passages act as high-value grounding material for LLMs, improving both visibility and authority.
  • The Problem: Many sites chase fact-density by aggregating competitor information, producing generic lists without true originality. LLMs are increasingly good at detecting redundancy, which means “me-too” content is less likely to be reused in AI-generated answers.
  • The Impact: Without distinct data or insights, your content risks being treated as noise. Competitors who provide original research, expert commentary, or unique analysis will be cited more often in AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT, and generative engines.
  • Best Practice:
    • Manually audit the market—identify what competitors cover, and more importantly, what they don’t.
    • Add original statistics (internal benchmarks, surveys, case studies, proprietary research).
    • Provide expert-level insights that tie facts to practical implications, showing clear subject-matter expertise.
    • Cite authoritative sources (.gov, .edu, industry leaders) to reinforce credibility.
    • Present facts in modular, extractable formats (bullet lists, tables, definition boxes) to improve passage selection.

5. Personalizing for Your ICP

On-page SEO for LLMs is less about stuffing keywords and more about anticipating the questions your ideal customer profile (ICP) is likely to ask. Generative engines expand user prompts through query fan-out, pulling in adjacent or related sub-questions. Pages that cover these variations in clear, structured ways are far more likely to be captured and cited.

  • Why It Matters: LLMs prioritize content that aligns with real user intent—especially exploratory, comparative, and multi-step queries. By aligning content to your ICP’s questions rather than just keywords, you create passages that directly map to the prompts AI engines generate.
  • The Problem: Many sites still optimize content around traditional keyword lists, leaving query-level gaps. Without coverage of the kinds of questions your ICP asks early in their journey, your pages may never be surfaced during generative answer construction.
  • The Impact: Pages that don’t address ICP-driven queries miss the customer discovery phase in AI search. Competitors who target these questions will gain citation visibility in AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT, and broader generative engines, even if their overall authority is weaker.
  • Best Practice:
    • Build FAQ blocks and subheadings that mirror real ICP-driven prompts (e.g., “How does [solution] help [industry] teams?”).
    • Cover query fan-out adjacencies—related comparisons, “how to” steps, pros/cons, and contextual “is it worth it” questions.
    • Map your ICP’s buying journey and ensure content aligns with early-stage exploratory queries, not just bottom-funnel keywords.
    • Use entity-focused language instead of keyword stuffing to align with knowledge graph recognition.
    • Audit content for coverage gaps by comparing ICP questions to your existing on-page structure.

Future Proofing LLM SEO

The pace of change in large language models (LLMs) is unlike anything SEO has faced before. In just the past five to seven years, these systems have advanced from basic transformers like BERT—which proved machines could parse syntax and understand semantics—into today’s generative models that not only interpret but also synthesize knowledge. Modern LLMs capture fine-grained statistical, syntactic, and semantic signals, enabling them to generate coherent, context-aware answers grounded in fact-dense and well-structured sources.

For SEO, this shift means the rules are evolving faster than ever. It’s no longer enough to optimize for rankings alone; sites must now be engineered for knowledge capture, grounding, and citation inside generative engines. Future-proofing your strategy requires anticipating where LLMs are moving next, building pages that are structured for machine readability, and ensuring your expertise is consistently recognized across evolving AI-driven search ecosystems.

Step 1: Ensure All Data is Readable to LLMs

As LLM-driven search becomes the default, one of the most important technical shifts is ensuring that all of your data is machine-readable. LLMs don’t just parse your HTML—they aggregate signals across multiple sources including sitemaps, structured feeds, Google Merchant Center, Google Maps, and even third-party business listings. If these signals are fragmented, inconsistent, or blocked, your brand’s visibility inside AI-generated answers diminishes.

  • Why It Matters: Cloudflare and other infrastructure providers have noted the rapid rise of AI bot traffic, showing that LLMs are crawling aggressively across the open web. If your pages, feeds, or listings aren’t structured cleanly, these bots may capture incomplete or outdated representations of your brand.
  • The Problem: Many enterprise sites silo their data. Product feeds may be accurate, but schema.org markup is missing. Google Maps or business listings may be updated, but the site’s own location pages lag behind. This inconsistency confuses LLMs, which rely on corroborated signals for grounding.
  • The Impact: Inconsistent or unreadable data weakens your entity authority. Instead of being cited as the definitive source, your content may be bypassed in favor of competitors or external directories with cleaner, more consistent signals.
  • Best Practice:
    • Make sure all key data—products, locations, services, and business details—is consistently represented in schema.org markup, sitemaps, and external feeds.
    • Audit external sources (Google Maps, Merchant Feeds, Business Listings) to ensure they align with your site’s own structured data.
    • Monitor AI bot activity (via logs or Cloudflare analytics) to confirm pages and feeds are being captured cleanly.
    • Avoid hiding critical data behind JavaScript or images—ensure textual equivalents are always present.
    • Treat every feed or listing as an input to the LLM knowledge graph—consistency across sources is what earns authority.

Step 2: Begin Hyper-Personalizing Content

Google’s patent US20240362285A1 reveals how deeply personalization is being built into the future of search. By leveraging first-party data—from demographics to life events—Google aims to make search experiences more accurate and context-aware. For SEO, this means that generic, one-size-fits-all content is no longer enough.

  • Why It Matters: LLMs don’t just retrieve facts; they tailor answers based on the user’s profile, intent, and stage in the journey. If your content doesn’t explicitly reflect these buyer-specific contexts, it risks being outcompeted by pages that do.
  • The Problem: Most websites still produce content targeted at a “general” audience, without considering how it aligns with personas, demographics, or life-stage triggers. As personalization becomes central to ranking, this lack of contextualization limits your relevance in generative answers.
  • The Impact: Without personalization signals embedded in your content, LLMs may favor competitor pages that are more aligned to the user’s intent profile. You miss critical opportunities to surface during early discovery queries where personalization has the biggest impact on buyer perception.
  • Best Practice:
    • Build pages that align with personas and ICPs, reflecting unique needs by industry, role, or demographic.
    • Incorporate life-event triggers (e.g., “moving offices,” “expanding teams,” “retirement planning”) into content to match evolving user contexts.
    • Layer in personalized journeys—awareness, consideration, decision—with content blocks that align to each stage.
    • Use schema and metadata to reinforce context (e.g., Audience, Event, Person markup).
    • Audit content against buyer personas to ensure coverage of intent diversity, not just keywords.

Step 3: Think Like Prompt Commands and Tasks

As AI systems evolve from answering questions to executing tasks, the way brands appear in search is shifting. In Google’s AI Mode, ChatGPT, and similar environments, users are beginning to issue command-style prompts (e.g., “Change phone providers for me, let’s begin the process”). This moves discovery beyond informational queries into task-oriented workflows, where LLMs guide users step by step through actions.

  • Why It Matters: If your brand’s information isn’t structured and framed for task execution, LLMs may skip over you in favor of competitors with clearer pathways. This includes transactional workflows, sign-up processes, or service migrations that LLMs can recommend or automate on behalf of the user.
  • The Problem: Most content is written in a descriptive, informational style, not a task-oriented one. Pages often fail to explain how to begin, what to expect, or which steps to follow. Without this framing, LLMs have no structured material to use when building out interactive task flows.
  • The Impact: Brands risk being invisible in the next generation of AI search—where prompts evolve into commands that trigger real-world actions. Competitors who provide clear, step-based pathways will earn placement in LLM responses that guide users through tasks, effectively becoming the AI’s “recommended provider.”
  • Best Practice:
    • Create step-by-step task flows (e.g., “How to switch providers”, “Steps to start a free trial”, “How to migrate your data”).
    • Add modular content blocks with instructions that can be easily extracted (ordered lists, process tables, FAQs).
    • Use action-oriented headings (“Start Here,” “Begin the Process,” “Complete Step 1”).
    • Align with transactional schema (HowTo, Action, Product, Service) to make workflows machine-readable.
    • Audit your high-value conversion paths to ensure LLMs can capture them as commands, not just explanations.

Supporting this shift, Josh Blyskal from Profound analyzed tens of millions of ChatGPT prompts and found that a new “Generative” intent type already accounts for 37.5% of AI prompts. Users increasingly expect AI to do the work—writing, creating, or executing tasks—rather than just delivering information. Transactional prompts (e.g., “draft my Amazon return”) also appear 9× more often in AI search than in Google search. This proves the next frontier of SEO isn’t just about visibility in answers, but positioning your brand where task execution happens inside the chat itself.

More on AI search from Go Fish Digital

MORE TO EXPLORE

Related Insights

More advice and inspiration from our blog

View All

AI Overviews SEO: Get Visibility in 2025

AI Overviews SEO is the practice of optimizing content so it...

Patrick Algrim| September 03, 2025

AI MAX Advantage: The Fundamentals Everyone’s Forgetting

The future of paid search belongs to relevance. See how SEO,...

David Dweck| September 02, 2025

How to Balance Marketplaces and Your DTC Site Without Cannibalizing Sales 

Struggling to boost Shopify sales while marketplaces dominate? Learn how to...

Meghan Houston| September 02, 2025