Web sitemdeki içeriği denetlememe yardımcı olması için ChatGPT’yi kullanıyorum. Güncelliğini yitirmiş gerçekleri, içerik boşluklarını, denetim makale yapısını, içerik kalitesini, meta bilgileri bulmama yardım et gibi… Bütün bunlar güzel şeyler.
Şu ana kadarki sonuçlardan memnunum, bu yüzden bunu daha hızlı ve daha yapılandırılmış bir şekilde yapabilecek bir araç olup olmadığını görmek istiyorum. Her seferinde çok uzun bir bilgi istemi yazmak istemiyorum ve sonuçların her seferinde aynı şekilde yapılandırılması yardımcı olacaktır ki bunu elde edemiyorum.
Bunun gibi herhangi bir AI denetim aracını bilen veya bu araçla ilgili deneyimi olan var mı? Tercihen daha düşük fiyatla veya ücretsiz.
Surfer, Jasper ve Writesonic gibi incelediğim tüm araçların ihtiyacım olan şey için fazla abartı ve gerçekten pahalı olduğunu düşünüyorum.
Veya belki de bunu ChatGPT ile yapmanın benim kaçırdığım bir yolu vardır… 🤨
Your post/comment has been removed because your account has low post karma.
Please contribute more positively on Reddit overall before posting. Cheers 😀
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SEO) if you have any questions or concerns.*
hey u/malexandric
thanks for asking – you wont like this but I’ve said and tested this a million times and built websites with 40k pages – actually up to 7 millions (pan-EU jobs site, built in ASP. net)
Thinking that Google understands the whole planets content and what we think and whether thats right might be a little overestimating Google
Secondly, thinking an LLM – a pattern recognition system can “predict” a style is also on the side of over-estimating the capabilities of LLMs
There are a lot of ideas on the content side of SEO that posit that writing in particular styles or hitting certain “subjective” equalities like word count, depth = demonstration of purpose or research dont actually hold up to any critical thinking whatsoever.
Google cannot reward structure – that would result in killing communication innovation. If you’re looking for similarity in the top ranking pages for structure, you’re lost.
Google uses PageRank – much to everyone’s disdain – simply because its the only objective standard for ranking content that works.
Google have said on many occasions they’ve tried experiments with ohter models that fell flat
Here’s how confirmation bias works: despite the overwhelming evidence (e.g. the Google SEO starter guide which was updated at least twice this year stating that PageRank is fundamental to SEO) – people continue to pretedn and fabricate other alternatives and inject non-existent frameworks – and then people who’s bias are confirmed by those fabrications continue to persist with them.
Like EEAT, “Social signals”, content structure, external citations – and tools like Surfer play into the bias
Surfer SEO is mostly used by sites with huge authority.
What never happens with confirmation bias – is that people will NEVER test the corollary (i.e. doing the opposite) because they’re afraid it will actually work.
You can post a one liner page and it will rank similarly as a 5,000 word page.
Google cannot know if content is right, linking to harvard or stanford is just not sign of research, unless you are willing to delude yourself into thinking that anyone can do this and Stanford cannot stop them. This is how con artists work – they work on confirmation bias and people feel “confident” that what they’re seeing or hearing is objectively true.
# What you should do
Stop following competitors, publish something and then after 3-4 weeks, look at the pages performance in GSC. The search phrases that Google matched your document = inspiration for adding to the document.
No other tool can give you that information and its free