Illustrative sample · AI & local-visibility snapshot
What a snapshot looks like — for a dental clinic
Illustrative example, drawn from a real audit and anonymized — not a specific named practice. It shows the format you'd receive. Figures are industry benchmarks, not guaranteed outcomes; the compliance section is a marketing read, not legal advice.
50/100
Poor — significant opportunity. Strong human-facing basics and a genuine 4.8★ reputation, but the practice is largely invisible to AI assistants: marketing-only content with no Q&A, generic structured data, no llms.txt, and thin on-page expertise signals.
| Dimension | Score | Weight |
|---|
| AI Citability | 35 | 25% |
| Brand Authority | 65 | 20% |
| Content E-E-A-T | 40 | 20% |
| Technical GEO | 60 | 15% |
| Schema & Structured Data | 55 | 10% |
| Platform Optimization | 55 | 10% |
| Overall GEO Score | 50 | — |
01What we found
High priority
- Broken contact form — submissions hit an error state. Enquiries go nowhere; likely losing patients now.
- Marketing-only content, no FAQ/Q&A — AI assistants have nothing quotable, so they don't name the practice. The biggest drag on the AI score.
- No llms.txt — nothing gives ChatGPT/Gemini a clean summary of who/where/what.
- Thin on-page expertise — no named dentists, credentials, or associations; experience isn't surfaced where people or machines can read it.
- Unsubstantiated superlatives — claims like "voted the best dental office in town" / "the #1 dentist" with no named award or date → an advertising-compliance risk and a trust risk.
Medium
- Generic schema — "MedicalBusiness" rather than the specific "Dentist" type; no FAQ schema and no AggregateRating, so a 4.8★ reputation is invisible to machines.
- Hours hidden from people — opening hours exist in the page's data but aren't shown to visitors.
- AI-crawler access — allowed in robots.txt (good), but a test request as an AI crawler failed to connect — worth verifying.
02Reputation & compliance
Reputation: 4.8★ across Google / review platforms / social — a real strength. Two gaps: the rating isn't in the site's structured data (so AI can't read it from the site), and there's no visible review-generation or owner-response routine.
Compliance (marketing read, not legal advice): the "#1 / best" superlatives are unverifiable as written. Recommended: name the award + year + issuer, or soften (e.g., "patients rate us 4.8★"). Status: corrections recommended.
03Recommendations — by area
- Fix & comply (one-time): repair the contact form; show hours; revise the superlative claims.
- Local SEO & Google foundation: optimize the Google Business Profile (categories, services, photos, hours, Q&A, posts); NAP consistency; real service pages + on-page SEO.
- AI / GEO readiness: publish llms.txt; upgrade schema to Dentist + FAQ + AggregateRating; add a real FAQ and plain-language procedure pages.
- Reviews & reputation (ongoing): put the rating in schema; steady review requests; owner responses; monitoring.
- Social media — SMM (ongoing): a planned content stream + community management + optional paid social aimed at booked appointments, not vanity reach; monthly reporting on enquiries.
How we'd engage: a one-time fix + foundation, then keep it growing month to month — most of the result (and the compounding) is in the ongoing work.
04Want this for your practice?
We'll run the same snapshot on your site and Google profile — free, plain-language, no account access needed.