Organic SEO that brings traffic from Google, and presence in AI answers.

GEO, short for Generative Engine Optimization, is adapting a site to be a source that answer engines cite. SEO is measured by position in the results list, GEO is measured by the percentage of times the brand appears in the answer to a fixed set of questions. The work itself mostly overlaps, the measurement is completely different.

Organic SEO is priced as a monthly retainer, because it's ongoing work and not a project. The amount is set by the state of the site today, how much new content is needed per month and how competitive the industry is. I give a number after auditing the site, not before, because a quote without an audit is a guess.

Technical changes can have an effect within weeks. Meaningful organic traffic usually arrives after four to eight months, depending on the age of the site and the competition. In the AI layer you can actually see movement faster, but it's also far more volatile.

No, and nobody can. Google doesn't sell organic positions and doesn't disclose the algorithm. Anyone who guarantees first place is guaranteeing something they have no control over. What I do commit to is a process, full transparency in the numbers and a straight answer when something isn't working.

Not with a single check. The same question returns different sources on different runs, and source overlap between runs was measured at around 0.32 to 0.43 on the same day, according to a study published on arXiv in April 2026. So I run every question seven to eight times, across several engines, and report an appearance percentage. A single check is noise, not data.

Depends which. Every engine has a training crawler and a retrieval crawler. Blocking the training crawler is a legitimate business decision. Blocking the retrieval crawler takes you out of the answers and out of the links that come from them. Many sites block the second one by mistake. In the first audit I go over the robots.txt and say who is blocked.

There's no evidence it affects citation. It's cheap to add, so I add it as one line in a technical checklist, but anyone selling it as a method is selling you a text file. The things that were actually measured as influential are quotable wording, data with a source, mentions off-site and freshness.

For most businesses it's not an either-or question. Paid brings customers from day one and stops when you stop paying, organic takes months, and then keeps working. The common combination is paid holding the pipeline while organic is being built. You can read about the other side on the paid advertising page.

No. WordPress is actually convenient for this work. What we do check is speed, templates that generate duplicate headings and plugins that add conflicting schema. Most WordPress problems can be fixed without rebuilding the site.

Yes, because part of my work is building systems that produce and check content. I'm a technologist before I'm an SEO. What we don't do here is pour out hundreds of articles on phrases nobody searches for. Every topic passes a demand check before it's written.

AEO, short for Answer Engine Optimization, is another name for the same work called GEO. Some people distinguish between them and say AEO targets direct answers on Google and GEO targets generative engines, but in practice the actions are almost entirely identical: a clear answer in the first paragraph, data with a source, a correct heading structure and mentions off-site. If someone sells you SEO, AEO and GEO as three products at three prices, you're paying three times for one job.

Not always. A business selling one service in one area can go far with good service pages and a well-kept Google Business Profile, without a single article. The blog enters the picture when there's real demand for questions around your topic and they have nowhere to live on the site. The rule I work by: an article is written only if it has measured search volume and only if it leads to a page that generates an inquiry. A blog written "because we need content" is an expense and not an asset, and I've seen enough sites with two hundred articles and zero inquiries from them.

There's no magic number, and Google has said so explicitly more than once. Length is a result of coverage, not a goal. What does work: check what's in the pages ranking today for the same phrase, cover what they cover, and add at least one thing none of them has. Sometimes that's eight hundred words and sometimes three thousand. An article stretched to hit a word target does harm, because it pushes the answer down and raises the chance the visitor goes back to Google.

No, and I don't do it. Buying links for ranking is an explicit violation of Google's guidelines, and there's no quantity threshold below which it's fine. A paid link marked sponsored or nofollow is actually allowed, and it's also one of the things Google is best at detecting today. The risk isn't shared equally: it's your money, your site, and the penalty stays after the vendor disappears. What does work is links that come because there's a reason: research or a data point someone wants to cite, real collaborations, relevant business directories and mentions in the press. It's slower, and it lasts.

Yes, and it's usually the biggest opportunity a small business misses. On a search with local intent, Google shows a map with three businesses first, and what decides who gets into those three is mainly the Google Business Profile, the reviews, the category chosen and the consistency of the name, address and phone across different sources online. For some businesses the right work is mainly there and less on the site, and I'll say so if that's the case.

In most cases no, and I'd rather not. An existing site with history on Google is an asset, and rebuilding without handling redirects correctly is one of the fastest ways to lose traffic accumulated over years. There are situations where there really is no choice, for example a closed system that doesn't allow changing titles or URLs. Then I say so up front and explain exactly what's blocked, instead of billing months for work the system won't allow.

It's four letters from the document Google gives its human quality raters: experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness. It's important to understand that it's not a score Google measures and not a direct ranking factor, but a description of what it tries to identify. In practice it translates to simple things: a real author's name with a background, visible contact details, sources for data, an update date and content written by someone who actually did the thing. In industries that touch money or health its weight is especially high.