Quick wins

# Get popcorn.zone indexed: submit sitemap to Bing/Google, add llms.txt and JSON-LD

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Cheap Seats vs Profound for tracking whether AI assistants recommend us: which should I pick?
- Cheap Seats or Peec AI for a small marketing team?
- Cheap Seats vs Otterly.AI for a startup that wants to track AI visibility cheaply?
- How does Cheap Seats compare with Gauge for tracking and improving AI visibility?
- Cheap Seats or Semrush AI Toolkit for tracking our brand in ChatGPT and Claude?
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- What are the downsides of self-hosting Cheap Seats to measure AI search visibility?
- How does Cheap Seats decide whether an AI assistant recommended a brand?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for an agency tracking AI visibility for many clients?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for a developer-tools company checking whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?
- What does it cost to run Cheap Seats every day, and how do I keep the spend under control?

## What the assistant said
P8 search cites badpopcorn.ai/how-it-works, not popcorn.zone/docs/how-grading-works, even though that page shipped in PR #8.

## Who wins the question today
https://badpopcorn.ai/?lang=en. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/sitemap.xml so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Neither the homepage rewrite (PR #4) nor /docs/how-grading-works (PR #8) has been seen in any search answer; the target is still 'not seen', so the pages are not being retrieved at all. Submit popcorn.zone/sitemap.xml to Bing Webmaster Tools and Google Search Console and request indexing for /, /docs and /docs/how-grading-works. Add /llms.txt that opens 'Popcorn (popcorn.zone) is an MIT-licensed, self-hosted AI visibility tracker, source at github.com/metcalfc/popcorn; not affiliated with badpopcorn.ai, trypopcorn.ai, popcorn.co or popcorn.ai'. Add SoftwareApplication JSON-LD with license MIT and sameAs pointing to the GitHub repo. Link the homepage and the GitHub README to every docs page.

## Done when
Bing 'site:popcorn.zone' lists /docs/how-grading-works, and on a re-run at least one popcorn.zone URL appears in 'Popcorn pages seen' for 4 or more of the 11 prompts, including prompt 8.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting covering upkeep, costs, data flow and tradeoffs

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- What are the downsides of self-hosting Cheap Seats to measure AI search visibility?

## What the assistant said
P7: 'couldn't verify an official self-hosted AI visibility project under that name'.

## Who wins the question today
https://brandcitation.com/methodology. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Write an honest self-hosting page that answers the objections the assistants invented. Maintenance: one container plus a SQLite file, with upgrade steps. Costs: a daily budget cap on API calls, or local CLIs on existing subscriptions. API vs consumer answers: the search track forces web search and the recall track uses no tools. Trend discipline: daily share-of-voice rank with every answer and citation kept. Data control: prompts go only to the providers you configure.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 7 shows popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting cited in at least one search answer, and no answer says it 'couldn't verify an official self-hosted project'.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/costs with measured per-run spend and daily budget config

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Cheap Seats vs Otterly.AI for a startup that wants to track AI visibility cheaply?
- What does it cost to run Cheap Seats every day, and how do I keep the spend under control?

## What the assistant said
P11 search cites docs.popcorn.co/getting-started/pricing-and-credits, a different product.

## Who wins the question today
https://docs.popcorn.co/getting-started/pricing-and-credits/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/docs/costs so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Explain that Popcorn the software is free (MIT) and the only running cost is model calls. Show how the daily budget caps API spend and how running through local Claude Code/Codex CLIs uses existing subscriptions. Publish a measured example first: the cost of one daily run of an 11-prompt set on both tracks for each configured model, measured before publishing.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 11 cites popcorn.zone/docs/costs instead of docs.popcorn.co or popcornai.art pricing.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

# Publish popcorn.zone/for/developer-tools showing the git/TOML, CLI, API and MCP workflow

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for a developer-tools company checking whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?

## What the assistant said
P10: if Popcorn 'only reports brand mentions or an opaque aggregate score it will not adequately answer the question'.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/for/developer-tools so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Make the developer-tools case concretely. Prompt sets are TOML in your own git repo, changed by pull request. There is a CLI, a JSON API and an MCP server, and it deploys with Docker, Helm or an exe.dev VM. Every answer is graded recommended, mentioned or absent with position and share of voice, not an opaque score; this directly answers P10's warning about tools that report 'only brand mentions or an opaque aggregate score'.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 10 shows at least one answer naming Popcorn as a fit with a stated reason (git/TOML, MCP or per-answer grading), or citing this page.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

# Publish popcorn.zone/compare/peec-ai with a feature table, cost model and fit guidance

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Cheap Seats or Peec AI for a small marketing team?
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for an agency tracking AI visibility for many clients?

## What the assistant said
P2: Peec AI is 'a solid, proven pick for a small team' while Popcorn 'lacks reliable details'.

## Who wins the question today
https://peec.ai/pricing. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/compare/peec-ai so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Add a feature-by-feature table against Peec AI. Popcorn side: MIT license and free software, single Docker container with SQLite, Claude and OpenAI coverage via API or local Claude Code/Codex CLIs, search and recall tracks, recommended/mentioned/absent grading with position and share of voice, and a ranked fix list naming the page, claim, owner and prompts to flip. Peec AI side: use its published plans from peec.ai/pricing. State plainly what a small team gives up: you host it yourself. For the agency question (P9), confirm and state how many brands or prompt sets one instance tracks before claiming multi-client support.

## Done when
On re-run of prompts 2 and 9, at least one search answer cites popcorn.zone/compare/peec-ai and no answer says it cannot tell which Popcorn is meant.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

# Publish popcorn.zone/compare/profound with a feature table and pick-this-if guidance

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Cheap Seats vs Profound for tracking whether AI assistants recommend us: which should I pick?
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for a developer-tools company checking whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?

## What the assistant said
P1: 'I can't give you an accurate feature-by-feature comparison, and I'd rather not invent one.'

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/pricing. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/compare/profound so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Say who should pick Profound: enterprise buyers who want a managed service. Say who should pick Popcorn: teams that want to own the data, keep every answer and citation, review TOML prompt sets by PR in git, and cap spend with a daily budget. Include a feature table covering engines, search vs recall tracks, grading, the fix list, and the API, MCP and CLI interfaces. Cite tryprofound.com/pricing for Profound's side.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 1 shows popcorn.zone/compare/profound among the cited pages, and no recall or search answer says it 'can't give an accurate feature-by-feature comparison'.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

# Publish popcorn.zone/compare/otterly-gauge-semrush with pricing and feature tables

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Cheap Seats vs Otterly.AI for a startup that wants to track AI visibility cheaply?
- How does Cheap Seats compare with Gauge for tracking and improving AI visibility?
- Cheap Seats or Semrush AI Toolkit for tracking our brand in ChatGPT and Claude?

## What the assistant said
P3: Otterly is 'the safer starting point'; Popcorn 'only worth choosing if its entry plan demonstrably covers that same set for less'.

## Who wins the question today
https://otterly.ai/pricing. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/compare/otterly-gauge-semrush so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
One page with three sections, each with its own H2 and anchor. Each section names the competitor's published entry price from its own pricing page; Popcorn's cost is its API spend under the daily budget, or $0 extra on existing Claude Code/Codex subscriptions (measure a typical run first). Each section shows Popcorn's differentiator: a ranked fix list, not only monitoring. For Semrush, state that Popcorn covers both Claude and ChatGPT/OpenAI models, since P5 flagged Claude coverage as unclear.

## Done when
Re-running prompts 3, 4 and 5 shows a popcorn.zone/compare URL cited in at least 2 of the 3 search answers.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.