When an assistant cites a page, it is not rewarding \u201cgood writing.\u201d It is choosing a source that is easy to retrieve, safe to quote out of context, and clearly attributable to a real publisher.<\/p>\n
Most assistants that show sources use a retrieval step: they pull a small set of pages from an index, extract passages, then generate an answer around those passages. Your page needs to survive each step without friction.<\/p>\n
Citation-ready pages tend to share three traits: extractability (clean snippets), provenance (who said this and when), and verifiability (support for the claims that matter).<\/p>\n
If you want a useful baseline for what \u201cgenerative AI\u201d is in this context, Wikipedia\u2019s overview is a neutral reference point: Generatieve kunstmatige intelligentie<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many teams add an author name and dates, then wonder why competitors still get cited. The missing piece is usually implementation detail: the content is still hard to lift, or key claims still look risky when quoted.<\/p>\n Think like a system that must attach your URL to a short excerpt. If the excerpt can be misunderstood, or the page looks vague, the assistant often chooses a safer source.<\/p>\n Use this as a practical checklist for how to make a page easier for AI to cite. It focuses on changes that reduce extraction risk and increase source confidence.<\/p>\n\t\tWhy \u201ctrust signals\u201d alone are not enough<\/h3>\n
The page upgrade checklist to make AI citations easier<\/h2>\n