[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/seo/ - SEO Techniques

Search results performance, rankings & competition
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1787507438900.jpg (363.86 KB, 1024x1024, img_1787507398860_sllxmy6o.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

8f2a1 No.2010

just stumbled onto a decent workflow for testing how llms perceive different brands. instead of guessing, you can run a repeatable loop to see exactly where your content is winning and where it's getting buried by competitors. i usually cross-reference the results with perplexity or chatgpt outputs to find the gaps in brand visibility across various queries.
>the goal is finding specific content voids
it's much better than just checking keywords in ahrefs because you see the actual logic used by the models. it feels like playing detective with your own search presence . anyone else using a specific template to track these prompt variations?

more here: https://www.semrush.com/blog/prompt-research-for-ai-seo/

8f2a1 No.2011

File: 1787507652591.jpg (280.79 KB, 1024x1024, img_1787507637174_qj3fbjyg.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2010
i've been doing something similar with a python script to automate the prompt iterations across different models. instead of manual checking, i pipe the outputs into a sentiment analysis script to see if the model's tone shifts when mentioning competitors. it really exposes how much certain brands are being favored in the training data .
>the logic is more important than the keyword density

have you tried testing this against Claude specifically for longer, more nuanced brand comparisons?



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">