THE SHORT ANSWER

Start with the decision or question a person needs to resolve. Give a direct scoped answer, explain definitions and conditions, support claims with primary evidence, add original examples or data, and organize the page with descriptive headings, lists or tables only where they help. Keep important text accessible, update stale facts and remove filler. Write for humans in a structure machines can understand.

Start with the question behind the query

A query is language; intent is the task behind it. Someone asking about software compatibility may need a yes or no, supported versions, exceptions and a safe next step. Someone comparing strategies needs criteria and trade-offs. Write the brief around that decision.

Review the existing results and conversations to understand what is already available, then identify what your organization can add from evidence, expertise or direct experience. Do not publish another summary solely because the phrase has demand.

Build a layered answer

  1. State a direct, qualified answer near the beginning.
  2. Define terms before relying on them.
  3. Use descriptive headings that preserve context.
  4. Show comparisons in tables when dimensions align.
  5. Label illustrative examples and distinguish them from results.
  6. Cite the source next to evidence-bearing claims.
  7. Connect to the next relevant question through internal links.

A reader should be able to scan for orientation and continue for reasoning. A retrieved passage should retain enough subject and condition to avoid becoming misleading when separated from the page.

Create information that a summary cannot replace

From commodity coverage to contribution
Weak defaultStronger contribution
General tipsA tested process with conditions and failure cases
Unsourced claimPrimary evidence and an explanation of limits
Generic comparisonCriteria tied to a real decision
Invented exampleClearly labelled scenario or documented case
Stale overviewMaintained facts with a review trigger

Google's current generative-search guide emphasizes unique, non-commodity, people-first content. That is official guidance for Google Search, not proof that one content format earns citations elsewhere.

Evidence & context: Google Search Central

Use an editorial and discovery review

  • Can a person identify the answer and its scope?
  • Can each factual claim be traced to evidence?
  • Does the page add something unavailable in generic summaries?
  • Are important facts present as accessible text?
  • Would a paragraph remain accurate if retrieved alone?
  • Is there a clear reason and owner for future updates?

Sources & further reading

  1. Optimizing your website for generative AI features on Google Search

    Google Search Central. Official Google guidance checked 13 September 2026. It treats AEO and GEO work for Google as part of SEO, recommends established search foundations and unique people-first information, and does not describe other assistants' systems.

  2. AI features and your website

    Google Search Central. Official documentation for AI Overviews and AI Mode checked 13 September 2026. Product behavior, availability and reporting can change; eligibility never guarantees crawling, indexing or appearance.

  3. General structured data guidelines

    Google Search Central. Official guidance on supported structured-data formats, relevance and rich-result eligibility. Correct markup does not guarantee a rich result, ranking or generative citation.

Examples and exercises are illustrative unless attributed to a source. No independent expert review is claimed.

A correction, a counterexample or an experience worth sharing?

Join the conversation ↗