proofsource

Find where AI leaves you out. And fix it. Track how ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity & Google AI name your brand, then close the gaps. Start free ↓

[Amit @amitkumar0331]

$10K MRR in 20 days 🙏 without spending 1$.

This isn't a huge milestone, but it definitely helps get back in the game with proof of demand.

We are proud as a team of what we delivered.

More coming soon...

🔗 https://t.co/45Ab3cNPsD

@akachandan1

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@nielskaspers This. Answer engines read your pricing page, your support docs and the Reddit thread saying the opposite, then average the vibes. That's how you get mentioned with the wrong price. Fix the facts first, then rerun the same prompts a few times to see if the answer moved.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@KonradSzymaniak Good catch. The scary version is a team "fixing" a drop that never happened: rewriting pages because GA4 lost the tag, not the visits. Before reacting to an AI traffic dip, rerun your core prompts. Still named and cited? Then it's the plumbing.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@JimmyEpp Agree, with one wrinkle: a mention can get you named in the answer without you ever being cited as the source. Unlinked press and forum chatter tends to do the first, your own pages the second. Track them separately, or the mention work looks invisible in referral data.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

The irony: what moves AI answers is mostly what other people say about you (reviews, press, forums), not the 40th press release written for a crawler. Flooding your own channels is easy to do and easy for models to discount. Earned third-party mentions are slower and much harder to fake.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@heynavtoor This flips the usual GEO worry. Everyone asks "are we cited?" Fewer ask "is the answer saying what our page actually says?" Being linked under a claim you never made is its own problem. If you track AI answers, log what's said about you, not just whether your URL shows up.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@noahiglerSEO The price-range page is so underrated. "It depends" gives an AI nothing to quote; a real range with honest caveats does. One add: run the same "who can come out today in [city]" prompt several times. One answer can fluke. The pattern across runs tells you if you're really in it.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@foley_seo Agree on not mixing up citations with visits. We'd split it once more: mentioned vs cited. AI answers often name a brand without linking it, so the payoff shows up later as branded search or direct traffic, not referrals. Track only clicks and you undercount it.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@DavidGQuaid The feature-attribution point is underrated. Getting listed is cheap; being the brand the answer credits with what the buyer cares about is the win. And the isolation test is the real lesson: most GEO work is 12 changes plus one screenshot. Change one thing, rerun, then decide.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@AIGuide_ Step 2 is where teams quietly fool themselves: one clean session is a sample of one. Run each buying question a few times, in Perplexity and AI Overviews too (they trust different pages), and log "named in the answer" apart from "cited as a source". Different fixes.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@aleyda @minuttiax The 16% disclosure number is the quiet headline. The other bit worth stealing: if answers cite 3-10 pages and reshuffle between runs, one "we're cited!" screenshot proves little. Sample each prompt several times, and track whether the engine names you, not just a list that does.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

You rewrote the page, added schema, and posted a 'we're optimizing for AI' LinkedIn carousel.

Did ChatGPT's answer change?

Asking for your next QBR.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@Majestic @BrockbankJames Brockbank's right, and it's the part most teams skip because it doesn't live on their own site. One check worth adding: see whether those third-party mentions get your brand named in the answer or just cited as a source. The same article can do one without the other.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

Free GEO audit, takes 2 minutes:
Open robots.txt.
See if it blocks GPTBot.
You're welcome.
That'll be $0.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@driesdegelder That ChatGPT third is the part boards miss. A mention is ambient reputation. A citation is whose URL actually fed the answer, often a Reddit thread or a review site, not your homepage. If the GEO dashboard only tracks mentions, you're celebrating the easy half.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

LFG 🚀

[Chandan Kumar @akachandan1]

Your buyers are asking AI what to buy.

Now you can ask AI how it sees your brand, without leaving the chat.

Introducing @proofsourceHQ MCP. Works in Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Grokbot and more.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

ChatGPT mentioning your brand is a compliment.
ChatGPT citing your brand is a pipeline.

Know which one you're getting before your CEO asks.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@Dmytro_Sokhach The sources-vs-brands split is the whole game. A week-old listicle domain can become the page ChatGPT cites. Your product still needs third-party mentions and a consistent identity to get named. A brand-new review site just gives the model another page to scrape.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@itsnathanhirsch Strong stack, especially the robots.txt line. One Disallow can wipe the whole board. On measurement: weekly prompt checks only work if you sample each prompt more than once. Single-run screenshots lie.

[proofsource @proofsourceHQ]

@ConnorGillivan That carryover matches what we keep seeing. Real topical authority often shows up in AI without a separate GEO campaign. One caveat: Google #1 is fairly stable, ChatGPT answers wobble run to run. Run those buyer prompts 5-10 times before calling it won.