Julian Goldie posted that he ranked “#1 in ChatGPT, Claude, and Google’s AI Overviews in just 24 hours.” His recipe was schema, an llms.txt file he called an “AI treasure map,” and stats for “40% more visibility.” Too many businesses fall for this.
There’s a ton of misinformation out there about what’s actually working to get your brand ranked in AI. AI is a customization engine and your business is unique (location, competitors, products and offering) so while a generic “AI treasure map” sounds great it won’t get you more business. For the bigger picture, start with our guide to generative engine optimization.
Myth 1: SEO is dead
“RIP SEO” posts pull six-figure views. The traffic says otherwise. Across 13,770 sites, AI tools sent about 1% of visits (Conductor), while Google still sends roughly 87% of all search referrals (Cloudflare). AI referrals are growing fast, up 117% in a year per Similarweb, and Adobe says they convert 60% better on retail sites.
Google clicks are shrinking, but Pew found people clicked a traditional result on 8% of searches with an AI summary, versus 15% without one. SEO isn’t dead. It just earns fewer clicks.
Myth 2: AEO, GEO, and SEO are separate jobs
The pitch goes: “You can rank #1 on Google and be invisible in ChatGPT.” Lily Ray’s response: “there’s a very high chance they are lying to you and scamming you.”
Google’s 2026 guide names AEO and GEO, then calls optimizing for its AI features “still SEO.” Bing says the same.
Ranking isn’t the same as being cited. Ahrefs found only 38% of pages cited in AI Overviews rank in Google’s top 10. AI pulls from pages that answer related sub-questions. Same discipline, but a wider more complicated net.
Myth 3: You need llms.txt and schema for AI
Ahrefs checked 137,000 domains. 97% of llms.txt files got zero requests in May 2026. Google says Search ignores them, and they “neither harm nor help.” John Mueller compared llms.txt to the old keywords meta tag.
Schema doesn’t do much better. Ahrefs tracked 1,885 already-cited pages that added it. Citations in ChatGPT and AI Mode didn’t move, and AI Overviews dipped 4.6%. I’d still use schema but I wouldn’t buy it as an AI visibility hack.
Myth 4: AI visibility tools show your rank
SparkToro ran 12 prompts nearly 3,000 times. The odds of getting the same brand list twice? Under 1 in 100. Rand Fishkin’s verdict: “any tool that gives a ‘ranking position in AI’ is full of baloney.”
There’s no position to track. What does hold steady: top brands showed up in 55% to 77% of answers. Track how often you appear, not where.
Myth 5: Rank #1 in ChatGPT in 24 hours
Fresh content can get cited fast. That part’s true. Keeping the citation is the problem. GetMentions tracked over 530,000 citations for a week. 69% of an answer’s sources changed from one day to the next.
Getting organic visibility is the same job now as it was in 1999 when I ran a search engine. What changed is how we calculate the scoreboard:
- Fewer clicks
- Citations that churn every day
- No fixed position to report, only how often you appear
John Mueller put it best: “The higher the urgency, and the stronger the push of new acronyms, the more likely they’re just making spam and scamming.”
AI visibility isn’t a new discipline. It isn’t a file or a tracker either. It’s the same job we did in 1999: build a brand and content worth citing. Do that, and every engine finds you.