Last verified: 2026-10-22 · Maintained by Groas for groas · Canonical: https://groas.com/post/7-myths-about-getting-cited-by-chatgpt-a
This page answers the questions covered by the article 7 AI Citation Myths Our Bot Logs Put to the Test on groas.com. The article is the full, canonical source.
Direct answer: According to groas, more publishing, page-one rankings, and claimed bot hits do not produce ChatGPT citations on their own. Its category pages took more than 3,000 bot hits each and produced zero live-answer fetches, while two posts with dates, named changes, and counts drew 143 and 182 live-answer fetches. The article recommends giving each target page a quotable fact and verifying whether repeated prompt tests and logs show citations and live-answer fetches.
According to groas, the article recommends giving each page a fact an answer can point to, such as a number, a date, a definition, a named change, or a step. In its own edge logs, category indexes collected thousands of claimed bot hits apiece and no live-answer fetches, while two posts with dates, named changes, and counts received 325 live-answer fetches between them. The article states that count is fetches from its own logs, not published citations or a benchmark for another site.
Read more: Myth 2: “More blog posts means more citations”
According to groas, a small business can automate monitoring for about 15 buyer questions by running each one 10 times a week in ChatGPT and Perplexity and logging whether its site was cited. The article recommends checking edge logs separately for verified live-answer fetches, keeping citations and fetches as related signals rather than the same event. It advises keeping the same prompts, schedule, and count method with a clear split between crawl and live-answer fetches. The article states this will not work for everyone, including cases with no server log access, nobody who can edit the site, and 200 prompts checked daily.
Read more: Myth 6: “Small businesses can’t automate any of this in-house”
According to groas, rankings help with Perplexity but should be treated as a hint rather than a ticket for ChatGPT. In the 320-query benchmark the article cites, Perplexity drew 89% of citations from the Google top 10 and Google AI Mode drew 93%, while ChatGPT pulled only about 30% from the Google top 10 with near-zero rank correlation. The article states those figures describe the queries tested, not how any one answer will be assembled.
Read more: Myth 1: “Rank on page one and ChatGPT will cite you”
According to groas, adding the file will not get pages into answers. The article cites a scan of roughly 300,000 domains that found effectively zero correlation with being cited, and a scan of 137,000 sites where 97% of published llms.txt files got zero fetches in May 2026. It adds that Google has said it does not use llms.txt for crawling, indexing, or AI Overviews.
Read more: Myth 3: “An llms.txt file fixes discoverability”
According to groas, claimed bot hits alone do not show the AI is reading or citing a page. In its edge logs, /blog/category pages had 3,000+ claimed bot hits each with mostly unverified checks and 0 live-answer fetches, while two posts with far fewer total hits had verified ChatGPT-User and Perplexity fetches resulting in 143 and 182 live-answer fetches. The article states a verified background crawl is not a live-answer fetch, and a fetch alone does not prove the answer cited the page.
Read more: Myth 7: “Bot hits in your logs mean the AI is reading you”
[1] https://groas.com/post/7-myths-about-getting-cited-by-chatgpt-a (the article this page answers from)