Turns not being cited into a task list

• You know you are not cited, and the recommendations you find apply to any website.
• The cited page is objectively worse than yours, and it is still the one that shows.
• You rewrote the whole page and it still does not show, and you cannot tell if that was the problem.

You do not compete against perfection: you compete against the page that did show.

1. 1

   The question is run

   To the engines your plan includes, with search enabled. What matters is not the answer: it is the list of sources cited, because those are the pages that won.

2. 2

   They are compared by dimension

   What they cover that you do not, how their answer is structured, what evidence they bring, how recent it is and who it is attributed to. Five fronts, each with its concrete difference.

3. 3

   The literal citation is stored

   The fragment the engine took from the winning page is stored verbatim. If the report says you lack a figure, you can see the exact figure they cited and verify it exists, instead of trusting us.

• What the cited pages cover and your page does not mention.
• The structural differences, with the fragment the engine extracted from each.
• The tasks ordered by what they cost against what they change.

• Content teams with one specific page that cannot break through.
• Anyone who has measured, knows where it fails and now needs to know what to write.
• Agencies that must justify commissioning a rewrite.

Available from Pro, because each comparison runs the question against several engines and downloads the winning pages. The estimated cost is shown first, and the plan's spending cap stops it if it does not fit.

See the full pricing

What if the report invents a difference that does not exist?

That is why every difference travels with the literal fragment from the cited page. If the report says they bring a 2026 figure and you do not, there is the figure with its link. A claim with no fragment is not shown: it is discarded before reaching the report.

Do I have to copy what they do?

No, and it would be bad business. The useful part is understanding why their page was easier to cite: it is almost always a matter of form, not substance. Copying the content leaves you as one more page; copying the way of answering leaves you citable with your own content.

How long until a change shows?

It depends on when each engine crawls your page again, and nobody controls that. In practice, between days and weeks. The honest approach is measuring before and after with the same question set, and not claiming the improvement before you have the figure.

Is it useful if the cited page is Wikipedia or a big publisher?

Less, and the report says so instead of pretending you can compete with them on authority. When the cited source is encyclopaedic, the actionable thing is not your page: it is being mentioned inside that source, which is a different job.