Location, Location, Generation: Where You Ask Matters for Generative Engine Optimization
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Generative search engines answer local and commercial questions with a written answer and a few cited sources. A growing practice of generative engine optimization (GEO) monitors which sources and brands these answers show, typically from a single place. In this paper, we present a controlled audit of how the user's location changes the sources that generative engines cite. We ask 300 questions of ChatGPT with 19 declared locations, and of ChatGPT and Gemini from five network locations, each twice to measure run-to-run noise (31,200 answers). The engines take location from different channels. ChatGPT follows the location an application declares, down to the city: it writes the place into its own searches, and its search backend localizes results even when the queries name no place. It ignores the network. Gemini ignores the declared location and follows the country of the network, changing most of its sources even for questions that do not depend on place. The businesses the answers recommend change with the sources. Thus, visibility in generative search is specific to the user's location, and audits must control both channels.
Results and benchmarks
Generative search engines answer local and commercial questions with a written answer and a few cited sources.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 55/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- Start with framework-native implementations (e.g. PyTorch optimizer module, Optax, or Transformers training loops).
- Replicate the paper ablation settings first, then compare against modern baselines.
Time to first repro: a few hours
This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX