Checking ChatGPT sources: what does the link actually support?

In answers using web search, sources may be linked directly to statements. Depending on the interface, a source overview may also be available. Alongside cited pages, it can show other material used during research. The exact presentation may change with the product.

If no source is visible, ask for a traceable source and check the address you receive yourself. A source supplied afterwards is not proof that it was actually used for the original answer.

A page title or search snippet may be incomplete. Open the linked page and find the statement in context. Check whether it is official documentation, an expert article, advertising or a personal opinion.

For a platform’s rules, its own documentation is particularly important. For statements about a company, it should be clear whether the information comes from the company itself or an independent body. Both can be useful, but they carry different evidential weight.

Record the statement checked, the specific URL, when it was accessed and the result of your review. For functions that change, the product context matters. If something remains unresolved, mark it internally as unclear and do not turn it into a public factual claim.

An illustrative example: An answer claims that an advertising product is available everywhere. The official page, however, lists only certain countries. Its actual availability in your own market therefore needs checking. This is a source check, not a measurement of your company’s visibility.

Your website should contain clear, traceable statements. Company information, service scope and examples must align. If evidence of success is lacking, a factual explanation of the approach is better than an unsupported promise.

The guide SEO with AI shows how to incorporate this review into editorial work. The distinction between a source link and a brand mention is explained in Measuring AI visibility.