Check whether AI systems can actually read, interpret, and recommend your site.
GEO Fix team4 min read
Your team wants speed. Google wants helpful pages. ChatGPT sits in the middle — useful if you treat it as a drafting assistant, dangerous if you treat it as a publish button.
This is a workflow article — prompts, review gates, cadence, and mistakes. For policy context, see does Google rank ChatGPT content?. For E-E-A-T evaluation, see helpful content framework. For bulk risk, see scaled content abuse.
Bad prompt: "Write a blog post about CRM software."
Better prompt: "Outline a 1,200-word post for B2B founders choosing their first CRM. Our audience is 10–50 employee service firms. Include sections on budget, integrations, and implementation time. We sell [X]; don't mention us in the draft — this is educational. List facts I must supply in [BRACKETS]."
Specificity reduces generic filler.
Ask for:
Then expand section by section — easier to fact-check than one giant paste.
Add:
Example: A Shopify store drafts a sizing guide in ChatGPT, then adds measurement photos and return-policy specifics. Google gets useful content; AI saved outline time.
Example — skip this step at your peril: An agency publishes ChatGPT service pages with invented statistics. Trust erodes; rankings never stabilize. The tool didn't fail — review did.
Before publish, score your draft against the 12-question framework. If you're below 12 points, you're not ready — regardless of how clean the prose reads.
Avoid launching 40 AI pages in a weekend. Publish on a cadence you can review properly.
If it sounds like every other AI article, rewrite the opening and add one story or number from your business. The first screen must feel like you.
| Content type | Minimum review |
|---|---|
| General blog | Marketing owner + one factual spot-check |
| Pricing / offers | Sales or founder |
| Legal / finance / health | Licensed professional |
| Product docs | Product + support alignment |
No gate = no publish — even if the draft "looks fine."
| Good ChatGPT jobs | Keep human-owned |
|---|---|
| Outlines and headings | Legal/medical/financial accuracy |
| FAQ question lists | Pricing and guarantees |
| First drafts of how-to steps | Brand voice and sensitive claims |
| Summarizing long internal docs | Quotes, testimonials, case details |
| Rewriting for clarity | Decisions on what not to publish |
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Copy-paste publish | Mandatory expert pass |
| Same prompt → 50 city pages | Fewer pages + real local proof |
| Keyword stuffing in prompts | Write for the customer question |
| Chasing AI detector scores | Track Search Console clicks instead ([detector article](/blog/does-google-rank-chatgpt-content/does-google-detect-ai-content)) |
| No updates after launch | Refresh when offers or laws change |
Teams tell us a version of this after a content sprint:
The fix is almost never "ban ChatGPT." It's fewer URLs, stronger review gates, and real proof on each page — the workflow above.
For whether those posts actually won or lost rankings, see is AI-generated content bad for SEO?.
Yes — with human review for offers, compliance, and claims you can stand behind.
Follow your industry's rules. For ranking alone, Google's focus is quality — not a mandatory label on every page.
No official number. If each post is distinct, accurate, and reviewed, cadence matters less than quality. If each post is thin and similar, one is too many.
Often not. See [you rank on Google but ChatGPT skips you](/blog/does-google-rank-chatgpt-content/rank-on-google-invisible-in-chatgpt).
Key takeaways
Find technical blockers, missing context, and weak AI-readiness signals in minutes.
No payment, no subscription.
