Sample Report · One-time Measurement · Content · September 2026
You are mentioned. You are not cited anywhere.
A service provider with a WordPress site of over 800 pages, operating in nine English-speaking countries. Content was analyzed using a site-wide crawl and an in-depth analysis on the EQwise SEO & GEO platform. Additionally, a usability panel based on eight buyer profiles provided by the client, and AI responses from ChatGPT combined with web searches across nine countries. The name, domain, page titles, and industry have been omitted; each number represents an actual measurement.
largest source by country50
the service provider itself0
Average across nine countries based on direct purchase demand; calculated by us using data from the survey conducted on September 21, 2026.
The core in two numbers
AI Answers
0 out of 324
with a clickable link to the service provider, nine countries
Buyer Profiles
4 out of 8
back out because of a missing or unclear price
The site has plenty of contentContent All content on your website, such as text, images, and videos.: over 800 pages, actively maintained and updated. The problem isn’t the amount of text.
There are three places where that text doesn’t reach its intended audience. First, in the structure that a search engineSearch engine A website used to search the internet, such as Google or Bing. or AI systemAI Assistant A chat program such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity that you can ask questions in natural language. needs to be able to read. Second, with the buyer who is looking for a price and can’t find anything. Third, with the AI assistant that’s looking for a source to cite and chooses a page other than the service provider’s own.
Three places where the text doesn’t reach
The same metric viewed from three different perspectives: what an AIAI Computer programs that perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as writing text or answering questions. response engineEngine The system that generates answers or search results, such as Google or ChatGPT. does and does not cite, what a buyer misses on the page, and how the site is structured.
AI Answers
The service provider ranks well in search engines. However, the picture is different when it comes to AI responsesAI Answer The generated response provided by an AI assistant in answer to a query. to purchase-related questions. Out of 324 responses across nine countries, measured on September 21, 2026, the site never received a clickable link.
In an earlier, smaller survey of 120 responses from five of those countries, the external overview page was cited as a source 445 times. For the service provider itself, that number was zero. The service provider is occasionally mentioned, but it is never cited with a link.
The ratio shown in the chart at the top (50% versus 0%) comes from the same measurement taken on September 21, 2026. On average across nine countries, the largest source per country—usually the external overview page—accounts for 50% of the citations in direct purchase queries. This is our own calculation based on the nine individual country measurements. The service provider itself accounts for 0%.
The remaining 50% is spread across 4 to 13 domains per country. When asked a broader, more open-ended question about the same subject area, the share of the largest source drops to an average of 11% (our own calculation). The citations are spread across 18 to 28 domains per country. For that question, there is no dominant source yet.
A likely explanation lies in the data modelData Model The way data is organized and interconnected within a system., not in the text. Price and duration are defined as categories on the service pages, not as fields, which means that a valid “OfferOffer A component of structured data in which an offer including price is recorded.” is missing from the page’s structured dataStructured data Additional information in the code that tells search engines and AI exactly what is on a page.. That is precisely the field that an AI response engine can read to quoteCiting An AI assistant that uses your page as a source and typically includes a link to it. a service with a price and date.
The fact that this is a factor is supported by what the assistant actually does. When asked about a provider of this service, he names several companies and links them all to the same external overview page.
That page is clear and well-organized, with a designated spot for each listed party. The service page itself lacks those designated fields, which suggests that this is why it is being skipped. This is an explanation, not a separate assessment of the cause itself.
The service provider is also listed on that page, but the description is slightly different from how the service is currently provided.
Why This Isn’t a Story of Despair. This presumed mechanism can be influenced: a valid price range on one’s own page and a correct listing on the external overview page do not require a redesign. With broader searches where there is no dominant source, the situation is reversed. No single source is yet the established reference, and that is as much an opportunity as it is a risk.
Search Intent
Fifteen service pages promise in their headlines to answer a buyer’s most important questions, but fail to deliver on that promise. A usability test on eight buyer profiles created by the client itself reveals the cost of that failure. Four of the eight profiles drop out precisely because of a missing or unclear price—a piece of information that is missing from those fifteen pages.
| Copper | Drops out at | Evidentiary Value |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | a price without a payment plan | strong |
| 2 | a price that isn’t listed anywhere on the page | strong |
| 3 | “Price upon request” instead of an amount | strong |
| 4 | Unclear requirements for getting started | moderate |
| 5 | a price you have to request separately | moderate |
| 6 | a promise without any information about quality | moderate |
| 7 | technical jargon | weak |
| 8 | a tone that assumes more prior knowledge than this buyer has | weak |
Structure
The site consists of five types of pages. The breakdown itself is sound: up-to-date and complete. The problem lies not in the numbers but in the two categories below them. It has to do with how a service is documented, and whether a page has a topic that a search engine or an AI system can interpret.
| Page Type | Number | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Pages | 201 | Leave as is: is up to date; robots and canonicals are in order |
| Blog Posts | 429 | Reviewed —only counted; content has not yet been reviewed in detail |
| Informational Articles | 39 | Leave as is: —no separate finding |
| Marketable Services | 15 | Replace ; these are separate from the description page; at least one service appears two or three times in the system |
| Taxonomy Archives | 126 | Leave “ ” as is; they are listed correctly in the sitemap |
The second layer is the heading structure, and it’s in worse shape than the numbers suggest. Of five core pages checked separately, not a single one has a proper main heading (H1) (rechecked on September 20, 2026: still zero out of five). A broader platform audit found this issue site-wide on 54 of the 834 crawled pages.
A visitor wouldn’t notice that: the headline is displayed large and clearly on the page. For a search engine or an AI system, however, such a page doesn’t have a defined topic.
| Finding | Number | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| No H1, site-wide count across 834 pages | 54 | Fix one line in the template |
| No H1 or more than one; in-depth analysis spanning 20 pages × 2 columns | 32 | Repair —same cause, inexpensive to fix |
| Five key pages were checked separately for H1 tags | 0 out of 5 | repair none of them have one |
Opportunities
Five interventions follow directly from the measurement, listed from smallest to largest.
| Procedure | Verdict | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Add price and estimated time to the fifteen service pages | repair | minor change repeated on every page |
| Restore Heading Structure (One H1 per Page) | repair | one line in the template |
| Correct the entry on the external overview page | repair | outside the site itself |
| Price and duration by category and field, with a valid offer in structured data | replace | is part of a foundational step; affects the data model |
| Remove duplicate entries for the same service | replace | is part of the same foundational step |
The first two can be implemented immediately and directly impact the purchase decision and searchability. The last two affect the same underlying data model and therefore go hand in hand. As long as “price” and “duration” are categories rather than fields, each page remains invisible to the field that an AI response engine reads. This applies regardless of how much text is on the page.
What Meets the Standard
The same rule applies here: if it looks good, leave it alone.
- The sitemap is complete and up to date: seven pages were updated in September, and nine in August.
- Robots and canonicals are set up correctly on all five of the core pages measured, and no AI crawlers are being blocked.
- Five previously reported broken service links were fixed by the customer using redirects, without being asked to do so.
- The editorial team is active: it’s the structure underlying the pages that’s stagnant, not the content updates.
What This Does and Does Not Prove
What it proves
- The site map, the heading structure, and the absence of an H1 tag on the five core pages were assessed and can be reviewed on the dates listed.
- AI responses to purchase-related questions do not link to the site, although the external overview page is cited. This was measured across 324 responses (September 21, 2026) and, previously, 120 responses.
- The finding that four out of eight buyer profiles drop out due to a missing or unclear price was determined through a usability panel testing the client’s own buyer profiles.
What It Doesn’t Prove
- As for the quality of the 429 blog posts: they were only counted; their content was not evaluated.
- The fact that a correction on that overview page alone resolves the AI visibility issue; the link profile and the data model also play a role.
- Whether every visitor experiences it exactly this way depends on the question they ask and the country in which they are searching.
Measurement Setup and Sources
Site-wide crawl of 834 pages (platform audit), EQwise SEO & GEO platform. In-depth analysis of 20 pages × 2 widths. Usability panel based on eight buyer profiles provided by the client.
AI visibility was measured using ChatGPT with web search enabled and the country set as the search location. The data consists of 324 responses across nine countries, collected on September 21, 2026. In addition, there is an earlier, smaller set of 120 responses from five of those countries.
This is an anonymized example of an actual measurement from a client; the name, domain, page names, and field of expertise have been omitted or replaced with a description.
How many AI-generated responses does your site cite?
A content analysis and an AI visibility check (SEO and GEO) reveal where the text fails to attract buyers. They also show where an AI response bot cites a source other than yours.
Request the SEO and GEO AuditLearn more about the SEO and GEO audit
