Static plus dynamic, not one opaque number
CitationGraph’s GEO score standard models static readiness and dynamic evidence separately. Static factors cover schema, metadata, llms.txt, and coverage. Dynamic factors cover AI crawl activity, bot diversity, and trend momentum.
A public marketing site can score well on static readiness while still lacking dynamic telemetry. That is expected; it does not mean the static work is unimportant.
Why site profiles matter
An e-commerce catalog, a marketing/docs site, and a publisher should not be judged by identical schema expectations. Product JSON-LD is critical for shopping pages, but FAQ, Organization, Article, and trust-page coverage matter more for a public product site.
The updated standard therefore supports site profiles so teams do not get penalized for missing signals that are irrelevant to their site type.
How to interpret the score
Treat the score as a diagnostic model, not as a universal search rank. The useful question is not whether the number is high in isolation, but which dimensions are weak and what evidence supports that diagnosis.
For the public CitationGraph site, the highest-leverage gains come from answer-oriented pages, richer trust signals, stronger docs coverage, and eventually real connected-site telemetry.
Key takeaways
- •The GEO score is a diagnostic model, not a magic ranking formula.
- •Static readiness and dynamic evidence should be read separately.
- •Site-type-aware weighting matters for fair scoring.