Find Citation Gaps
Open source analysis and pull the domains and URLs cited across the prompts where a buyer chooses a tool. Ignore single appearances for now.
Sort by how many of your tracked answers each source influenced. A niche thread cited in most of your category answers beats a high-traffic page cited once.
This ordering is the point of the exercise. It is what stops the output from becoming another undifferentiated content backlog.
For each high-influence source, check whether your brand appears. Three buckets: absent, present but described wrong, present and accurate.
Absent from a review or comparison site. Get listed. This is usually a form, a claim process, or an outreach email, and it is the fastest win available.
Absent from community threads. Participate honestly where your product genuinely fits. Do not astroturf — models and moderators both punish it, and a burned thread is hard to recover.
Described wrong. Correct it at the source. An outdated feature list or a stale price is repeated verbatim to every buyer who asks.
No good source exists. Create the page that should exist: the documentation or comparison that answers the prompt directly, in the buyer's words.
Keep the prompts identical and watch whether the source starts carrying you. When it does, the same answer that named a competitor starts naming you.
Why documentation punches above its weight here#
Official docs are a meaningful slice of the source mix on capability questions. When a buyer asks whether a tool supports something specific, models reach for documentation, and a page that answers plainly gets cited.
A marketing page claiming to be "the leading platform" gives a model nothing to quote. A doc page that says exactly what the product does, in the buyer's language, does.