Non-adversarial optimisation focuses on improving content quality and evidence density. The GEO academic paper (arXiv '23) proved this approach is highly effective, showing that adding evidence like quotes and stats can boost visibility by up to ~40%, while adversarial tactics like keyword stuffing perform worse.
Core Stats
"Making content quotable and evidence-rich nets visibility; keyword stuffing performs worse."
- Authors of GEO paper
Non-Adversarial Optimisation: The Sustainable Path to AEO
Trying to 'trick' AI engines with outdated SEO tactics is a losing game. A better, more sustainable approach is non-adversarial optimisation. As proven in the foundational GEO academic paper, this means focusing on creating genuinely helpful, evidence-rich content that answer engines are designed to reward.
Adversarial vs. Non-Adversarial: The Measured Impact
The GEO paper scientifically tested the impact of different tactics. The results show a clear winner:
| Tactic Type | Example | Impact on Visibility |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Adversarial | Adding quotes & stats | High Positive Lift (up to ≈40%) |
| Adversarial | Keyword stuffing | Negative Lift |
Why Non-Adversarial Wins in AEO
Answer engines are becoming increasingly sophisticated at detecting manipulation. A non-adversarial approach is more effective for several reasons:
- Builds Long-Term Trust: It aligns with what both users and answer engines want: high-quality, trustworthy answers.
- Future-Proofs Your Content: A focus on quality is resilient to algorithm updates.
- Improves Key Metrics: It directly boosts your PAWC and Subjective Impression scores.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do brands maintain visibility once they achieve it, given AI answers may change frequently?
It requires ongoing effort. As noted in Search Engine Journal, a key strategy is to update content regularly to ensure it remains the most accurate and authoritative source, which helps maintain its position in AI-generated answers.
Is any form of optimisation 'adversarial'?
It becomes adversarial when the primary goal is to manipulate the system rather than improve the content for the user. The GEO paper proved that non-adversarial, evidence-based edits are what actually improve visibility.
Will this approach protect against future algorithm updates?
Yes. A focus on high-quality, evidence-based content is the most future-proof strategy, as it aligns with the long-term goals of all answer engines to provide trustworthy information.
How is this different from 'white-hat' SEO?
It's the AEO equivalent. Both prioritize user experience and high-quality content over attempts to exploit loopholes in the system.