Clear engineering. Verifiable sources.
Comparing complex products requires dependable answers: Which version fits, what operating limits apply, and which evidence supports a claim? Karposa connects technical SEO with GEO, optimisation for generative answer systems. We build an accessible information foundation for Google and AI search rather than promising rankings or mentions.
Free Video Audit- Global and remote-first
- Technical facts before visibility promises
- Personal video audit without a preliminary call
Turn product knowledge into discoverable answers
Your expertise already exists, but it may be scattered across catalogues, product pages and sales documents. What matters is a clear connection between a search question, technical evidence and a relevant enquiry. We prioritise information that helps buyers and engineers make a genuine selection decision.
Accessible foundations
Crawling, indexability, internal links and rendered content form the foundation. Allowing access to a URL does not establish that it is indexed or visible.
Precise specifications
HTML specifications complement data sheets with readable units, operating conditions, variants and verification status. PDFs remain usable sources; we do not dismiss them as invisible to search systems.
Consistent entities
Company names, product families, model identifiers and technical statements need to agree. Translations and approved external profiles must not introduce conflicting properties or performance claims.
Four stages towards a dependable search foundation
We begin with prerequisites that can be checked. Editorial, development and product teams receive coordinated tasks before content expands. Technical approval and subject-matter sign-off remain part of the process.
- 01
1. Check crawl and index foundations
We examine status codes, robots.txt, indexing directives, canonicals, sitemaps and internal links. Samples compare delivered and rendered HTML. Search Console data is included only when access has been authorised.
Expected output: prioritised findings with example URLs and acceptance criteria. - 02
2. Structure technical answers
We map search intentions to applications and products. Specifications state units, boundary conditions, evidence versions and limitations. Accessible HTML content complements original documents; structured data reflects only visible, accurate information.
Expected output: page and specification templates for technical sign-off. - 03
3. Align entities and sources
We standardise manufacturer, product and variant names across relevant pages and languages. Source ownership, update dates and internal references are defined. External information is checked for consistency, not used as manufactured proof of market leadership.
Expected output: an entity matrix and assigned editorial maintenance responsibilities. - 04
4. Document answer samples
We test agreed technical questions in selected answer systems. Each sample records the date, system or available model version, language, region, exact wording and visible sources. Repeated tests reveal variation; sales signals are assessed separately.
Expected output: a prompt log with limitations and next verification tasks.
A system comparison, not a success chart
This before-and-after comparison illustrates two possible system states. It does not present measured client results or promise additional visibility.
| Area | Illustrative starting point | Conceptual target state |
|---|---|---|
| Index foundations | Important pages are difficult to reach through internal links; access rules remain unchecked. | Accessibility, indexing signals and remaining obstacles are documented. |
| Product knowledge | Technical information is scattered and lacks clear version references. | HTML specifications and original documents are connected transparently. |
| Entities | Product names and properties contradict each other across pages. | Agreed naming and technically approved information establish consistency. |
| Assessment | A single AI answer is interpreted as proof of visibility. | Documented samples, search data and enquiry quality remain distinguishable. |
What you will be able to inspect
Conceptual work and verification modules: the following documents are expected within the agreed project scope. They are not references, completed client projects or evidence of results.
Technical baseline assessment
Traceable findings distinguish confirmed problems from assumptions and explain access limitations.
Specification and entity model
A sample template connects technical properties with source versions, product identity and subject-matter ownership.
GEO sampling log
The documentation also includes absent mentions, divergent answers and statements that cannot be verified.
Does this approach fit your business?
Effective collaboration requires dependable product information and responsibilities that can translate into action. We assess those prerequisites openly, without artificial scarcity or blanket industry exclusivity.
A good fit when
- You offer complex B2B products with verifiable specifications and clearly defined applications.
- Product owners can approve facts and developers can implement technical changes.
- You want to assess enquiry quality and sales feedback alongside search data.
Not a fit when
- You expect guaranteed Google positions or fixed mentions in AI answers.
- Technical information cannot be published, checked or kept current.
- You want generic pages at scale, fabricated reviews or manipulated recommendations.
SEO and GEO: clear limits
Does GEO guarantee a mention in ChatGPT or Google's AI answers?
No. Indexing and snippet eligibility are necessary for Google's AI search features, but do not guarantee inclusion. Other systems also make their own decisions. Allowing crawling does not guarantee a mention either.
Do we need special AI schema or a new text file?
Google's AI search features require neither special AI schema nor a new AI text file. Sound SEO fundamentals remain relevant. Structured data must accurately reflect the visible content.
Must every PDF data sheet be replaced?
No. Search systems can process PDFs. Complementary HTML specifications make access, comparison and source verification easier. Accessible, current information and consistency with the original are what matter.
Are OAI-SearchBot and GPTBot the same?
No. OAI-SearchBot supports search; GPTBot concerns potential training. Their permissions must be considered independently. Search access does not require blanket training permission and does not secure a recommendation.
How do you assess progress without guaranteeing mentions?
We distinguish technical acceptance checks, search data and documented prompt samples. Answers vary by system, time and context. We assess qualified enquiries separately with sales; samples establish neither market share nor a causal contribution to revenue.
Free personal video audit
Submit your URL and email address. Within one business day, you receive a response with a personal video audit of your public website or shop: visible obstacles, open questions and prioritised opportunities. No preliminary sales call, no automatically generated video and no pressure to sign.
Qualification takes place in the existing wizard. Internal accounts, CRM, margins, consent and tracking quality can only be assessed with authorisation, data access and technical checks.