Updated at 2/1/2026

I wanted to understand what sources AI platforms trust when answering questions about AI SEO and content optimization. So I ran a controlled experiment using Savannabay's AI comparison platform.
Here's what I discovered about AI citation patterns (and what it means for content creators).
Update (February 2026): After publishing these initial findings, we've made an expanded validation study analyzing 60 websites across 74 different metrics, comparing sites ChatGPT cited versus those it didn't. The patterns held and revealed even more specific factors that make content citation-worthy. Read the full 60-website analysis: How to Get ChatGPT to Recommend Your Business in 2026
My first few queries returned zero citations. ChatGPT gave generic advice without sources.
Then I added one word to my query: "2025".
Suddenly, full citations appeared.
The insight: Temporal specificity triggers citation behavior. AI models interpret year-specific queries as requiring current, sourced information rather than general knowledge.
Academic Research: 18%
Major Tech/Business Publishers: 25%
SEO/Marketing Platforms: 20%
Niche SEO/AI Blogs: 37%
Pattern #1: Academic Credibility Dominates
arxiv.org appeared more than any other single source (11+ times across 4 different queries).
When GPT-5 needs authoritative backing for claims about AI behavior, algorithm changes, or technical implementations, it defaults to academic research.
Example citation contexts:
Why this matters: Publishing research (even preprints on arxiv) dramatically increases your citation likelihood. You don't need peer review; you need structured, data-backed insights.
Our new study validated this pattern: Sites with proprietary data and original research have more chances to be recommended, especially by ChatGPT. Even websites with no authority but proprietary data were mentioned, like robertyoung.consulting. Academic-style rigor, even without formal peer review, signals authority to AI models.
Salesforce Blog appeared 5 times - more than Forbes, Wired, or any major tech publisher.
What Salesforce did right:
The insight: Enterprise software companies publishing educational content get cited as heavily as traditional media. Authority comes from usefulness, not just brand recognition.
Sites you've probably never heard of appeared alongside Reuters, The Verge, and major tech publishers in citation lists.
Examples from the data:
What these small sites have in common:
This is the game-changer: You don't need massive domain authority. Sites like lairedigital.com and techmidiasquare.com got cited alongside The Verge and Reuters because they provided tactical specificity and clear structure that major publishers often skip.
We validated this at scale: In our new 60-website study, we analyzed sites with Domain Rating 0-15 that successfully competed against major publishers. The top performers achieved this through:
Reuters appeared 4 times, always for the same reason: recent platform announcements.
Citation contexts:
The pattern: Major news wires get cited for "what's new"—never for strategy, how-to, or analysis.
What this means: If you're not a news organization, don't try to compete on breaking news. Compete on analysis and implementation.
Schema.org appeared when discussing structured data implementation. Google Developers docs appeared when referencing official guidelines.
The pattern: Documentation sites get cited when the topic requires technical precision or official standards.
Your opportunity: Create documentation-quality resources for your niche. If you can become the "official unofficial" reference, you own that citation territory.
Across all responses, GPT-5 mentioned these tools multiple times:
Citations to their websites: Zero
What happened: ChatGPT referenced the tools in advice but didn't cite their marketing sites, documentation, or blogs.
The lesson: Being a known tool gets you mentioned in AI responses, but doesn't guarantee citation. Educational content gets cited more than product pages.
If you're a SaaS company, your blog matters more than your homepage for AI visibility.
The most-cited content followed this formula:
"[Number] [Action/Insight] [Topic] [Year]"
Examples of cited titles:
Why this works:
Based on 60+ citations analyzed, here's the definitive checklist:
Must-Have Elements:
1. Temporal Specificity
2. Academic or Data Backing
3. Tactical Specificity
4. Clear Structure
5. Authoritative Signals
6. Retrieval-Friendly Format
Focus on numbered, tactical guides with year specificity. You can compete with major publishers if you go deeper on specific tactics.
Do: "7 Schema Markup Patterns That Get You Cited by AI in 2025" Don't: "How to Improve Your SEO" (too generic, no year)
Your blog matters more than your homepage. Create educational content, not just product marketing.
Do: Tactical implementation guides Don't: "Why Our Tool Is Best" posts
Original research and data analysis get cited heavily. Publish studies, benchmarks, and frameworks.
Do: "We Analyzed 500 AI Citations - Here's What Works" Don't: Generic client case studies
Arxiv preprints get cited as much as peer-reviewed papers. Don't wait for publication, share findings early.
Do: Publish working papers on arxiv Don't: Wait months for peer review before sharing
This analysis is based on 12 responses to 4 questions from one AI platform (GPT-5). That's enough to spot clear patterns, but not enough to call them universal laws.
What we know:
What we don't know:
What's next:
This week:
This month:
This quarter:
AI citation patterns reveal something important: You don't need to be HubSpot to get cited. You need to be the best answer to a specific question.
The sites that got cited weren't gaming algorithms, they were creating genuinely useful, specific, tactical content with clear structure and authoritative backing.
That's the strategy: Own a specific answer that nobody else is answering as clearly, as recently, or as tactically.
About this research: Initial data collected October 2025 using Savannabay's AI comparison platform. Analysis based on GPT-5 responses with full citation tracking. Methodology: 4 queries × 3 responses each = 12 total responses analyzed, with 60+ distinct source citations tracked and categorized by source type, citation context, and content characteristics.
Follow-up validation study (January 2026): We expanded this research with a controlled analysis of 60 websites across 74 metrics, comparing 30 sites ChatGPT cited versus 30 non-cited sites answering identical queries. The patterns identified in this initial study were validated and quantified at scale.

Richard Lowenthal is founder of Savannabay, co-founder of GoBrunch and Live University, AI Search & GEO practitioner
Savannabay. 2026 All rights reserved.
MENU