Quick wins
The fix lists from the latest run of every prompt set, core sets first, then fastest expected ranking gain: prompts a fix could flip per working day, each weighted by what it has left to win (one minus its recommended rate over the last two weeks; named, for an info prompt). Mark a fix with the commit or pull request you submitted for it; open leaves out the ones you have. A later fix for the same page stays open, with what was tried before.
Siteall 1github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats (code) 1
Gapall 8documentation 6third-party 1product 1
Setall 2Choosing an AI visibility tool 1Cheap Seats head to heads 1
Add a third answer engine (Perplexity or Gemini) to Cheap Seats high product effort L flips 4 github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats Cheap Seats head to heads
Where: https://github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats
Must say: Paid tools win on engine breadth. Answers repeatedly say to pick Profound or Peec when Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews matter, and Cheap Seats only queries Claude and OpenAI. Content cannot close this gap: add at least one more answer engine, with Perplexity or Gemini via API as the likely first. Then list it on the README and the compare pages.
Done when: A shipped release supports a third provider, and on a re-run of P1, P3, P4 and P7, no search answer lists 'only Claude and ChatGPT' as an objection.
Why: "If you need Google AI Overviews, Gemini or Perplexity coverage... pay for Peec AI or Profound." (P7, claude-code-opus search)
Prompt for Claude Code
# Add a third answer engine (Perplexity or Gemini) to Cheap Seats When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a product gap: a real capability gap that content can't paper over. ## The questions it affects - Cheap Seats vs Profound for tracking whether AI assistants recommend us: which should I pick? - 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? - What are the downsides of self-hosting Cheap Seats to measure AI search visibility? ## What the assistant said "If you need Google AI Overviews, Gemini or Perplexity coverage... pay for Peec AI or Profound." (P7, claude-code-opus search) ## Your task This is a product gap, not a content one: https://github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats. Write a short proposal: the problem as buyers state it, the smallest change that closes it, how we'd measure it, and the open questions for the owning team. If this repo has the relevant code, point to where the change would go. ## What it must say Paid tools win on engine breadth. Answers repeatedly say to pick Profound or Peec when Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews matter, and Cheap Seats only queries Claude and OpenAI. Content cannot close this gap: add at least one more answer engine, with Perplexity or Gemini via API as the likely first. Then list it on the README and the compare pages. ## Done when A shipped release supports a third provider, and on a re-run of P1, P3, P4 and P7, no search answer lists 'only Claude and ChatGPT' as an objection. ## 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.