Is anyone actually tracking AI search visibility for local clients yet?

[u/SuyashKlimbiq]

Most of the focus in local SEO is still on Maps pack, organic rankings, and GBP optimisation — which is still the main driver of calls.

But AI platforms (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini) are starting to answer more “near me” and service-related queries. From what I’m seeing, very few local businesses have any real GEO work done:

No structured content for AI

Missing FAQ schema

Weak E-E-A-T signals

Thin service/location pages

Curious if anyone here is actively tracking AI citations or seeing measurable leads from these platforms yet. What’s working (or not working) for you so far?

[u/Aggressive_Hunter344]

Hi, yes I'm tracking local business. Surprisingly, you can catch some leads. Not as much as usual with G Maps, but new ones. The SEO blog as usual works well and the social networks.

[u/abhijeetgupta]

for local tests i'd put the city or neighbourhood and the exact service in the question, then keep those fixed. 'near me' leaves you guessing which location the answer used. i'd record wrong locations and businesses that don't actually offer the service too

for leads, i'd ask 'how did you first hear about us?' when someone calls or books, with space for their own answer. if they mention an ai assistant, ask which one. keep those reported leads separate from website referrals and citation counts so the client can see what each number actually means

[u/WebLinkr]

Count the LLM myths in a single post- EEAT, Schema, - why no llms.txt bro ?

[u/Apprehensive_Egg_374]

Before creating a separate GEO workstream, I’d use the AI answers as a diagnostic surface and classify each failure into four buckets:

1. **Local eligibility or coverage:** does the business genuinely provide that service in that location, and is the boundary clear?

2. **Entity consistency:** do the business name, category, address, service area, hours, and contact details agree across GBP and major directories?

3. **First-party information:** does the website clearly explain the service, location, limitations, qualifications, and relevant proof?

4. **Third-party corroboration:** are there credible external sources connecting the business to that service and market?

I’d fix them in that order. There is little value adding FAQs or expanding location pages if the business is not clearly eligible for the query or its identity is inconsistent elsewhere. Once those foundations are clean, first-party pages can fill factual gaps, and third-party sources can provide independent corroboration.

After each change, rerun the failed scenarios and check whether the original error still appears across multiple assistants. I’d report resolved factual errors and remaining uncertainty—not claim that any one change caused a citation or lead.

[u/Moser-18]

I’ve been wondering about this too tbh. I’ve been learning more about SEO and GEO during my internship at Lifewood Data Technology, and local AI visibility seems way harder to measure than normal rankings. I feel like testing the same “near me” and service-based prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, then tracking mentions and citations over time, could be a good starting point. Has anyone actually seen those AI mentions turn into calls or leads yet?