SEO or GEO? what is the future?

[alperseo]

It's a false split in my view. GEO became a sub-discipline of SEO once generative search went mainstream — it didn't replace anything.

Quick test anyone here can run: pull any ChatGPT or Perplexity answer in your niche, then check if its cited sources are sitting in Google's top 10 for that same query. In the markets I work (TR-language affiliate space) the overlap is 80%+. The LLMs are mostly paraphrasing what already ranks organically.

People who skip the fundamentals and try to "optimize for AI" with FAQ schema tricks and entity tagging alone are losing on both surfaces. The traditional SEO levers (relevance, authority, freshness) feed the AI surfaces too.

Where I do think GEO splits off is measurement — there's no GSC for AI Overviews yet, so you're flying half-blind on that side.

[GlobalPokerSites]

It's a false split in my view. GEO became a sub-discipline of SEO once generative search went mainstream — it didn't replace anything.

Quick test anyone here can run: pull any ChatGPT or Perplexity answer in your niche, then check if its cited sources are sitting in Google's top 10 for that same query. In the markets I work (TR-language affiliate space) the overlap is 80%+. The LLMs are mostly paraphrasing what already ranks organically.

People who skip the fundamentals and try to "optimize for AI" with FAQ schema tricks and entity tagging alone are losing on both surfaces. The traditional SEO levers (relevance, authority, freshness) feed the AI surfaces too.

Where I do think GEO splits off is measurement — there's no GSC for AI Overviews yet, so you're flying half-blind on that side.

Agree with this. It's really just made SEO more important whilst also altering perhaps what you need to focus on.

[xyseo]

Interesting thread. We’re seeing the same trend — ChatGPT and Perplexity are becoming the first stop for players looking for bonus info.
One approach that’s working for us: creating comparison pages with actual data (not just affiliate copy), which LLMs seem to prefer citing. Also worth making sure your brand/domain gets mentioned naturally across the web — entity recognition matters more now.
Still experimenting with this, curious what others are seeing.

[Cocktailspins SEO]

Interesting observation — geographic niche pages targeting underserved markets like Nigeria, Georgia and Cambodia seem to rank significantly faster than competitive head terms. We started with country-specific crypto casino guides and they indexed within weeks. Anyone else finding geo-specific content to be the fastest path to organic traffic for new affiliate sites?

[Samuel_Kim]

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find much information in this thread about what exactly helps a website appear in AI-generated search results.
Are there any simple steps I can start with?

I’m especially interested in off-page optimization. Do I need backlinks from social media, mentions on forums, citations from trusted websites, or something else? In other words, how can I help AI systems understand that my website is worth showing as a source or recommendation?

P.S. Creating unique tools, schemes, and services is something I’m already doing as well.
But I’m still not completely sure what to do with off-page optimization. Are backlinks from external websites actually necessary for AI visibility, or are mentions and citations enough?

[918kiss]

I've been following the discussions here closely, and the debate between SEO and GEO is definitely one of the most critical topics for search visibility right now.

I completely agree with the common sentiment in the forum: traditional SEO remains the dominant baseline, but its effectiveness in terms of pure organic click volume is definitely not what it used to be. With zero-click searches surging and AI summaries dominating the top of the fold, chasing the classic "10 blue links" is no longer enough on its own.
The way I see the future, it is not a matter of SEO versus GEO, but rather SEO evolving into GEO.

[scattermeter]

Just get optimize on everything, AEO/GEO is easy when your SEO is founded. Optimize everything including socials, especially reddit. One of the top sources of AI.

[JollyFirst]

The GEO vs SEO framing in this thread is slightly off. GEO hasn't introduced a new discipline, it has removed the parts of attribution that were always weak: the click, the referrer, the cookie. What's left is the part that was already hardest to fake, whether the answer actually holds up when a user goes to verify it themselves.

That's why the discussion keeps drifting to citations and rankings. They're not the goal, they're the only thing still measurable once the click layer disappears. The sites that will hold up aren't the ones chasing AI mentions, they're the ones that can still trace a deposit back to a source when the easy signals are gone.

@PaulEchere's value bet finder is the clearest example in this thread of what that looks like in practice: something an LLM can reference but not replace, because the value sits in the data pipeline, not the copy wrapped around it. Worth more attention than it's had here.

[Anas]

Definitely SEO first. Online gambling still doesn’t seem to be seeing the same GEO hype as some other industries, so I’d check the data for the specific market, especially whether AI Overviews are actually appearing, before investing heavily in it. At the end of the day, conversions matter more than visibility alone.

[valismaakasiino]

I think affiliate sites that compare different casinos are lucky. Looking for a casino our best bonuses would in my mind still be task for google. I have long time experience in the field and I have not noticed any sudden drop over the past years.

[Kirana]

I have become much more cautious about using third-party organic traffic estimates for smaller markets.these tools are estimates, but the difference appears especially large for low-volume local-language queries and long-tail searches. It can make a functioning small-market site look almost invisible.

[newcasinoai]

I'd flip the question: it's not SEO vs GEO — the same thing feeds both. Look at who the LLMs cite in gambling answers and it's overwhelmingly the sites that already rank, because citations and rankings grow from the same root: being the source others reference.
Two things from our side of it:

1. Not all queries bleed equally. Generic informational stuff ("what is wagering") gets fully answered in the AI box — those clicks are gone and not coming back. But brand and review queries hold up, and some studies show CTR actually rising there under AI Overviews. Makes sense: when someone's about to put money into a casino, a two-line AI summary isn't reassurance enough — they click through to see the licence check and the payout evidence before they deposit. Trust verticals resist zero-click.
2. The content LLMs cite isn't opinion, it's data. Our most-cited pages are databases — withdrawal speeds, licence records — not "top 10" lists. If you want to be the reference in the answer box, publish something checkable that nobody else maintains.

The tracked bonus code point above is a good one — it's attribution that survives being copy-pasted into an AI answer, which a link never will.

[CasinosBroker]

It's a false split in my view. GEO became a sub-discipline of SEO once generative search went mainstream — it didn't replace anything.

Quick test anyone here can run: pull any ChatGPT or Perplexity answer in your niche, then check if its cited sources are sitting in Google's top 10 for that same query. In the markets I work (TR-language affiliate space) the overlap is 80%+. The LLMs are mostly paraphrasing what already ranks organically.

People who skip the fundamentals and try to "optimize for AI" with FAQ schema tricks and entity tagging alone are losing on both surfaces. The traditional SEO levers (relevance, authority, freshness) feed the AI surfaces too.

Where I do think GEO splits off is measurement — there's no GSC for AI Overviews yet, so you're flying half-blind on that side.

Very interesting point.

I'd like to add: SEO and all it's sub-disciplines, is the main focus and should be until search engines exit on the Internet.

[FanieZevgolis]

Hello everyone, AEO is a thing, but what I’ve noticed is that AI models often draw from sources that already rank well in Google, so I don’t think SEO will ever stop being important. You need to rank to get noticed, and once you rank you need to create citable and branded content to get mentioned. I’ve also noticed that Reddit is another interesting part of this because relevant discussions can rank extremely well in search and also find their way into AI results, so genuine brand mentions and discussions outside your own site are becoming increasingly valuable. I think we are moving away from the old era of spammy backlink building and towards a much stronger focus on E-E-A-T, authority and genuinely useful content, and I actually prefer it.

[918kiss]

Interesting topic. I don't think SEO is going away, but the way people search is definitely changing. AI results may reduce some direct clicks, especially for informational searches.
For affiliates, I think the challenge will be giving users a reason to visit the site instead of only providing information that AI can summarize. Strong branding, useful comparisons, local content and regularly updated offers could become much more important.
So for me, it probably won't be SEO or GEO — we'll need to think about both.

[abidseo]

For a Swedish bonus site, I would not frame this as SEO versus GEO at all. The real question is which queries still need a visit, and which do not. A generic explainer will increasingly be answered in place, while a bonus comparison cannot be trusted from a summary alone unless it is dated, specific and verifiable. That is exactly wonderpunter's point about outdated codes: if your bonus data is stale, an AI answer will either skip you or repeat the wrong terms.

A practical split that has worked for me is:

1. Put one unambiguous answer at the top of each page, then the evidence underneath it. The summary is what gets cited; the detail is what earns the verification click.

2. Keep bonus data in structured, comparable form with a last-checked date, wagering, payment method, game contribution and eligibility limits, rather than burying those facts in paragraphs. The pages other posters here describe as most cited are databases, not opinions.

3. Measure differently. Clicks alone will understate AI visibility, so track brand searches, direct visits, clicks from AI citations where you can see them, and use a site-specific bonus code as attribution that survives being copied into an AI answer. That was a useful point made earlier in this thread.

4. Build one thing an answer cannot reproduce in a paragraph. PaulEchere's value finder is the clearest example in this thread; for bonuses, that could be a live filter by wagering, payment method and contribution, rather than another static list.

SEO is still the foundation here, as several posters said. GEO is mostly what happens when that foundation is fresh, structured and worth citing.

[SolFayerman]

The 80% overlap test alperseo describes matches what I see, and it settles the channel question. The split that does exist is the unit of retrieval. Search returns a page. A model retrieves a claim.
That changes drafting more than it changes strategy. A claim has to survive being lifted out of its paragraph: the figure, the date it was true, and what it applies to, all in the same sentence, in text. Anything carried by surrounding context gets dropped or mangled. So does anything living in an image, or in a table rendered client-side, which is where a lot of affiliate comparison data sits.

The other half is taking a position. Hedged copy that lists every possibility gives a model nothing quotable, and it gives a reader nothing either. The pages that get cited in my space are the ones that say plainly which option is better and for whom.