Quick wins

# Index cheapseats.dev in Bing and Brave: sitemap, IndexNow, llms.txt, JSON-LD, and a clear H1

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
P3 codex search: "couldn't find an identifiable official site or pricing page"; P2 cited https://cheapseats.ai instead.

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

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://cheapseats.dev/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
Cheap Seats must say plainly that it is an MIT-licensed, self-hosted AI visibility tracker on cheapseats.dev, and that it is not cheapseats.ai or the ticket or seating tools that searches confused it with. The earlier sitemap, llms.txt and JSON-LD work (PR 34) targeted popcorn.zone, the old name, so cheapseats.dev never got that treatment and was never cited in any answer. Ship the sitemap, llms.txt, SoftwareApplication JSON-LD, and Bing Webmaster plus IndexNow submission for cheapseats.dev, with an H1 reading 'Cheap Seats: open-source, self-hosted AI visibility tracker'.

## Done when
Re-running prompts 1–10, at least half of codex-sol search answers list a cheapseats.dev URL among the pages seen, and none cite cheapseats.ai as the brand.

## 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 cheapseats.dev/compare/ hub plus five vs pages with feature and cost 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 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?

## What the assistant said
P1 codex search: prefers Profound because it has "published plans with listed prices"; Cheap Seats features and pricing "unverified".

## Who wins the question today
https://www.position.digital/blog/best-llm-visibility-trackers/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://cheapseats.dev/compare/ (plus /compare/profound, /compare/peec-ai, /compare/otterly-ai, /compare/gauge, /compare/semrush-ai-toolkit) 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
Each comparison page needs a feature table: tracked engines (Claude and OpenAI via API or the local Claude Code and Codex CLIs), the search and recall tracks, recommended/mentioned/absent grading with position, top pick, share of voice and objections, ranked fix lists, kept citations, and the web UI, CLI, JSON API and MCP server. It also needs a cost row set against Otterly Lite $25–29/mo, Peec's entry plan and Profound Growth $399/mo: MIT software at $0, plus API spend capped by a daily budget, or no marginal cost on existing subscriptions. Measure and publish real per-run spend before stating dollar figures, and state the coverage gap honestly (no Gemini, Perplexity or AI Overviews). The popcorn.zone/compare pages (PR 15) sat on the old domain and were never seen.

## Done when
In re-runs of prompts 1–5, at least one search answer per prompt cites a cheapseats.dev/compare page, and the 'pricing unverified' objection drops out of those 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.