Citability checker for AI search

A citable page gives AI search engines something concrete to quote. Statistics, quotations and named sources all have measured effects on AI visibility, and this checker tests your page against them.

6 checks · 12% of the Slurp Score · Updated July 2026

Why citability matters for AI search

The Princeton GEO study tested nine tactics across 10,000 queries. Quotations lifted visibility 40.7%. Statistics lifted it 31.5%. Citing sources lifted it 29.1%. Keyword stuffing was the one tactic that backfired, cutting visibility 8.6%.

There is a caveat worth knowing. Follow-up research found these gains shrink as more sites adopt the same tactics, so citability carries 12% of the Slurp Score rather than dominating it. The checks still earn their place. A page an engine can quote beats a page it has to paraphrase.

Studies and sources: GEO: Generative Engine Optimization (Princeton, KDD 2024) · C-SEO Bench (NeurIPS 2025)

What GetSlurp checks

  • Statistics Concrete numbers an engine can quote and attribute.
  • Quotations Named sources worth reproducing word for word.
  • Outbound citations Links to authoritative sources inside your content.
  • Claim and evidence Whether your numeric claims carry attribution.
  • Readability Sentence length, because long sentences quote badly.
  • Keyword stuffing The one tactic measured to reduce AI visibility.

Every check in this category

This list comes straight from the audit engine, so it always matches what the extension and MCP server actually run.

cite.statisticsGraded

Adding statistics produced a +31.5% visibility lift in the Princeton GEO experiments; numbers are what LLM answers cite to sound grounded.

Fix: Add concrete, attributed numbers (percentages, counts, dates, measurements) to the page's key claims.

cite.outbound-citationsGraded

Citing sources produced a +29.1% visibility lift in the GEO experiments and was the strongest tactic in combination with others.

Fix: Link claims to authoritative external sources from within the body text.

cite.quotationsGraded

Quotations from named sources produced the largest measured visibility lift (+40.7%) in the GEO experiments.

Fix: Add attributed quotations from named people or organizations where they support the argument.

cite.claim-evidenceGraded

Answer engines verify claims against sources; a claim paired with its evidence in the same passage survives verification.

Fix: Pair each numeric or factual claim with its source in the same paragraph ("according to...", a study link).

cite.keyword-stuffingGraded

Keyword stuffing measurably reduced AI visibility (-8.6%) in the GEO experiments - one of the few tactics proven harmful.

Fix: Rewrite repetitive keyword-dense passages in natural language.

cite.readabilityGraded

Fluency optimization lifted visibility +27.8% in the GEO experiments; long tangled sentences are hard to cite cleanly.

Fix: Shorten sentences (target under ~25 words average) and prefer active voice.

Citability checker for AI search: frequently asked questions

What actually improves AI visibility?

Three content changes have measured effects in the Princeton GEO experiments. Adding statistics lifted visibility 31.5%, quotations 40.7% and cited sources 29.1%. Keyword stuffing was the one tactic that backfired, cutting visibility 8.6%.

Do statistics and quotes really help get cited?

Yes, with a caveat. The lifts are real, but follow-up research shows they shrink as more sites adopt the same tactics. A page an engine can quote still beats one it has to paraphrase, which is why the category carries weight without dominating the score.

Why is ChatGPT bad at citing sources?

Models paraphrase confidently and lose track of where a fact came from. You counter that by handing them citable material: concrete statistics, named sources and clean sentences they can reproduce word for word.