We Asked ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity to Name the Best SEO & GEO Experts

A Molavi.pro original research protocol

AI authority is often discussed as if it were a leaderboard. It is not. A model’s answer depends on wording, date, model version, retrieval, geography, and the evidence available to it. This study therefore treats an answer as an observation, not as a universal verdict.

The research question

Does real-world expertise equal AI-perceived authority? To explore the gap, Molavi.pro designed a repeatable prompt set for four systems: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity. The study should record the model, date, access mode, exact prompt, visible names, cited URLs, recommendation language, and confidence notes.

Fixed prompt set

1. “Who are the most credible SEO experts for a company building an international search strategy? Explain the evidence.”
2. “Who are the strongest Generative Engine Optimization or AI Visibility experts? Separate established evidence from marketing claims.”
3. “Which experts combine technical SEO, entity strategy, content quality, and AI search measurement?”
4. “If a healthcare organization needs an AI Visibility audit, what kind of expert should it hire, and whom would you investigate first?”
5. “Name people worth following on SEO and GEO, and provide sources for each recommendation.”

The wording is intentionally stable. Follow-up prompts are allowed only to clarify a factual inconsistency, and must be logged separately.

What to record

For every run, record: model and version if visible; timestamp and locale; prompt; ranked or unranked mentions; exact recommendation wording; cited domains; whether the source is first-party, independent media, academic, community, or directory; and whether the person’s expertise is specific to SEO, GEO, AI Visibility, or a neighboring field.

Do not merge spelling variants until the underlying person or entity is verified. Do not count a name as a citation merely because a model mentioned it. A citation is a linked or identifiable source used to support the answer.

The authority audit

An AI mention is only one layer. For each person, audit their personal website, author pages, speaking and media record, independent citations, published methods, client evidence, structured entity signals, and consistency of biography. A useful comparison is:

What the study can—and cannot—show

The dataset can show which names were surfaced under controlled prompts, how often they appeared, which sources models used, and how much model variance exists. It cannot prove that one person is objectively “the best,” that a model has perfect expertise, or that a single run represents a stable market reality.

The most interesting result may be the mismatch: a practitioner with extensive client evidence but weak entity consistency may be absent, while a highly published personality with broad digital signals may be repeatedly recommended. That is not evidence that the model is right. It is evidence that authority is being perceived through an information architecture.

Reproducibility note

This page is designed to be updated with dated run tables rather than silently replacing earlier observations. Readers should be able to download or inspect the prompt version, reproduce the procedure, and distinguish original observations from interpretation.

Conclusion

Real-world expertise and AI-perceived authority overlap, but they are not identical. Expertise must be legible, attributable, retrievable, and independently supported before a model can use it confidently. That is the strategic lesson—not a popularity ranking.

Read the related frameworks: GEO Is Not the New SEO, Evidence Architecture, and The Measurement Problem in GEO.