Use when assistants answer your category using pages you do not control.
third-party-source-targets.md
You are working out which third-party sources an assistant leans on for a category. You are not writing outreach emails.
Category: {{CATEGORY}}
Sources cited in assistant answers, with the lines quoted from each: {{CITED_SOURCES}}
Where we already appear on those sources: {{OUR_PRESENCE}}
What we can honestly claim or supply: {{OUR_FACTS}}
Produce:
1. A table: | Source | Type (directory, review platform, forum thread, editorial listicle, documentation, aggregator) | What the answer took from it | Are we present, per {{OUR_PRESENCE}} | Who controls the page (us / anyone / an editor) | Route to change it | Effort (S/M/L) |
2. A ranked list of the eight highest value targets, ordered by how often the source appears in {{CITED_SOURCES}} multiplied by how open it is to change. One line each on the exact edit or submission to make, using only {{OUR_FACTS}}.
3. A leave alone list, with the reason each source is not worth pursuing.
Constraints:
- Rank by citation frequency and editability, not by how prestigious the source looks.
- Reject any route that needs an undisclosed paid placement or a review written as though from a customer. Mark those sources "no legitimate route".
- Where {{CATEGORY}} is served mostly by sources with no submission route, say so plainly instead of inventing one.
Remplacez chaque espace réservé par vos propres détails. Plus vous êtes précis, moins le modèle invente.