Both GEO and GEO use energy units to assess qualities of approximate geometries (unlike other measures for geometric errors, such as averages in errors in geometric parameters). Several advantages arise from that. First, GEO and GEO can be directly compared to existing energetic scores of electronic structure methods or can be included in new ones. For this reason, we recommend the inclusion of mean GEO values for the B2se set to new versions of energetic scores, such as WTMAD-2 scores pertaining to the GMTKN55 collection of databases. Sec-ond, mean GEO for B2se can also be included in the training of new empirical methods, since the resulting methods would likely have better geometric performance than those using the same form but trained only on standard energetic datasets (e.g., datasets with atomization energies, barrier heights, binding energies, etc.) Here the focus is on ground-state structures, but in the future work GEO will also be calculated for excited-state structures providing tests for TD-DFT and wave-function methods. The same or slightly adjusted analysis will also be applied to noncovalent structures, 5,50 transition states (enabling quantification of geometric errors for barrier heights), as well as the structures of large transition-metal complexes obtained from semiempirical methods, for which DFT structures should be sufficiently good reference. In the context of DFT, improved densities should yield improved geometries. Thus, in addition to the standard DFT, we will also test the geometric performance of its densitycorrected variant.