Transcription
Mass-producing 100 articles a week is the fastest way to make your local business invisible. Now, someone sent me this video where a guy claims he can force AI chatbots to site your brand in 24 hours using autoblogging and bulk content. And for a national SaaS company, gaming listicles, maybe. But if you're a plumber, a roofer, an HVAC company, this strategy will dilute the one thing Google actually cares about for your local rankings. He never even mentioned it. Let's watch this video together. I'm going to pause it. I'm going to show you exactly where the traps are, and by the end, you'll understand why this hack is actually going to work against you for local businesses. Let's go ahead and get started.
Okay, here are my four steps to getting cited or recommended or mentioned by LLMs in 24 hours using this new Claw SEO workflow. Okay, we're going to be using Claude for this. It's going to be a very boring video, but stick stick with me, excuse me, because I mean, it's going to be worthwhile.
>> I mean, we use Claude, too. So, uh, so far I like Claude. Let's see where he's going. I don't know about 24 hours. That's pretty tough, but let's see.
Now, let me just show you proof. First things first, uh, for the prompt, um, best autoblogging software for SEO, we did not used to show up right here. So, right now, we can see that all these LLMs right here. A lot of them don't mention our brand. So, Perplexity Cloud doesn't mention our brand. Perplexity doesn't mention our brand, but Gemini and Grok do. And if I open this, open this up right here, I can see where we are mentioned right here, Arvo. And the the the source that's being cited is this article right here, which looks awful by the way. I just zoomed out a bunch. Uh but this software just basically comparing what the best auto blogging tool for SEO is 36. And of course, we show up right here. And that's the reason why we are being uh the reason why our brand is being mentioned right here. It's because our brand is mentioned in this source which then is being cited for this. So this is pretty well known that AI systems, AI models really like best of-type lists. Okay, they like best of-type lists so much that over the past few months a lot of people trying to get recommended by AI systems have abused best of-type lists and Google has actually started cracking down really hard on best of lists. Uh no indexing them, uh removing them as spam. And as we all know, the AI systems, they often will use Google to try to find information about whatever you're searching for. So if it's gone from Google, the AI systems aren't going to see it either unless it happened to be in their training data right here. And this works for like for anything, right? If I go here into Claude and say type in for example, what's the or I'm looking to buy a gift for my 10-year-old kid. He's into gardening. What do you recommend? Give me some product recommendations. It's very well written. The point is that, right, it's going to give me uh recommendations for stuff, right? And then it's going to tell me, hey, here's the recommendations based on XYZ sources. We've all used GPT before as well. Like it's the same thing, right? You ask it for something and like um what's the best best dropshipping software for beginners? You ask it, right? If it's for a software, physical product, agency, doesn't matter, right? Always going to it's always going to give you an answer, right? And it's going to make that answer better by citing the sources, right? As you see, right? You're searching through the sources.
So, yeah, exactly as he was saying, this searching comes up when ChatGPT or Claude or any of the models goes out and searches. Now, ChatGPT was trained on Bing. Microsoft is one of the big early investors in OpenAI. But when ChatGPT says searching like this, it is searching on Google. Okay? It's not searching on Bing anymore. Bing is just what it used for its training data sources, excuse me, by citing the sources sources where it found that info on. Okay, so for example, right here, it's choosing uh this right here. And again, it's citing the sources where it found the info on. So, usually a lot of times, right, the the brand it cites, well, it will cite, excuse me, the brand it mentions, it will come from a source that's actually the brand itself. But often times, no, right? Sometimes comes from different sources. For example, right here, let's see. This is going to drop again. Um, yeah, sure. So these we call mentions, right? So the one of the biggest differences between Google's algorithm and the AI systems including Google's AI Overview and ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, etc. The biggest difference is that Google relies Google's algorithm relies on backlinks. You actually need to have a link from one website to your website for Google to see that as a vote of trust. For the AI models, all they need to do is see that your brand was mentioned and it counts exactly the same. You don't need a link in the same way that you needed a link for Google. In this case, only like citing the same ones, but it doesn't happen all the time. And I'm sure you've seen this before. Like often times the brand it's it mentions where the mention comes from a citation where it's not like a branded citation if that makes sense.
But now the big question is, okay, sure, all this is great to ask, but how do you get, uh, how do you force yourself to get cited, uh, using Claude and specific? Well, first things first, it's one of the most important things is to go to Claude and and search the prompts and search the prompts you want to show up for. Make a list. Now, there's a lot of nuance to this, right? Because um, when you go into Claude, okay, well, if the prompt is for example, um, I'll keep with the same the same example. Let's just use my tool for this again. Hopefully you can extrapolate, uh, this to your other industries and I'll try to give you more examples. But let's say for example, it's skipping with ours, Arvo, an AI SEO tool that helps you rank on Google and get cited by LLMs. One of the customers we serve is um, is agencies. Okay. So let's say for example, I want to rank for the prompt, um, what's the best SEO SEO software for agencies? Now, it would be dumb of me, like when when we're making the list of prompts we want to show up for. So ideally for this prompt, if I hit enter, my brand is is recommended first. So it says, hey, Arvo, Arvo is the best AI tool for agencies. Now, this doesn't happen, as you saw before, right here, uh, where is it? For example, for the prompt, what's the best AI SEO house for agencies? We are not mentioned in any of these LLMs, so we don't show up. I can see the brands who are like who show up. I can see the um their citations right here. I can see why, but we'll we'll cover this later on. But again, point being is that we don't show up for this prompt in any. But I want to show up for this prompt, right? So again, the list of prompts needs to be smart. It would not make sense for me to have and put on my list of prompts the prompt for example, um, best AI SEO software for agencies. Why? Well, because these two prompts have the exact same search intent, right? It's all about intent with the prompts. Yeah.
So, he's basically talking about here the way that we think about this in local SEO is obviously the AI models aren't using keywords and Google's algorithm also doesn't use keywords. Google's algorithm uses entities. ChatGPT uses entities. They all use different entities, right? And the models understand what an entity is. So if you ask, what's the best AI SEO software for agencies, the models understand that you're looking for software for SEO agencies driven by AI. Those are different entities that the model is going to be able to connect because of its training. So he's exactly right that what's the best AI SEO software for agencies and best AI SEO software for agencies is basically the same thing. You don't need to track them both. This is something that we would reveal in, uh, we call it service entity research. Proper texting intent is the most important thing, the only important thing, honestly, right? This wouldn't make any sense. Why are we going to be optimizing for prompts with the same search intent? Doesn't make sense because if I search for this or this, right, the intent behind my prompt is the same. So most likely for these two prompts, the answers the Claude would give me and the brands it would recommend would be the exact same because again, the intent is the same, right? Again, what sense if I just do, uh, um, I'm an agency and I'm looking for the best AI SEO SEO software to streamline my processes. Again, doesn't make any sense because the the these three prompts are the exact same.
>> So, I have to disagree with him a little bit here. And that third prompt, he's putting a little bit of a nuance on it because here he's telling the model that he wants to streamline his processes. So that will have the model specifically looking for software that has that functionality. It's going to read user reviews on Trustpilot, on Reddit, other sources and look for a software that where people have actually been talking about using it to streamline their processes. So that is a slightly different and more specific search prompt than his other two.
>> Well, well, actually before that, let me just give you another example. Right. For example, if my if I want if I sold like gardening kit,
>> I'm also really happy that he stopped trying to do this all live and pre-drew on his screen. Very nice, Vasco.
H for kids. So, it would be dumb of me to target all these prompts to put all these prompts in my list because they're all the same. For example, the prompt best gardening toolkit for kids is the same as my kid is 10 years old. What would be the good way to get him started in gardening space? Well, this prompt assumes that okay, it's a kid, he's young, and he's wants to get started in the garden. So, he's a newbie. So again, it's a best beginner tool, uh, for kids just starting out. It's the same like he's my kid's birthday next week, 10 years old, and I want to get him a hobby. So beginner, right? I was thinking about gardening thought. So it's the same thing. Or even stuff like this. My wife just got divorced, just divorced me, and I it's set and I'm sat on the loan and I want my kids to love me and so I'll just buy them a bunch of and win their love with gifts since they're going young. Yeah.
So, let me show you that the AI systems are actually uh advanced enough to understand that these are all slightly different prompts, slightly different searches, and the user is looking for a different thing. So, let me go to ChatGPT. Okay, so he had four prompts, 1, 2, 3, 4 windows, and let's do it. All right, so that's the first one he had. That's the second one he had. That's the third one he had. And that's the fourth one he had. Now, I'm kind of worried that when I put this one in ChatGPT, it's going to think that my wife divorced me. She has not. Okay, so here we go. It uh it's recommending the gardener six-piece tool set, little pal's watering can, and the garden be kids gardening tool set. Okay, that's what it's recommending. And here, and it is now suggesting to start with a small wins fast garden, not a big serious one. Uh pizza garden. So, this is actually recommending the types of gardens to grow. It's not recommending products at all. Okay, let's try this one. Uh, and this one. So, this is pretty similar to the second one, but not exactly the same, right? It a little bit similar, but it's not talking about like the pizza one. Uh, so this is similar, but still very different from the first one. And let's see, what do we have here? Man, that's rough. I'm sorry. Uh, oh man. Uh, the ChatGPT is telling me not to do this. What what I'd buy is not a bunch of stuff. So, ChatGPT is really coming in hard here. And uh so we do have different products than the ones that it recommended here, right? So, if I grab this, okay, we can see there is absolutely no overlap on the picks that ChatGPT gave for those two prompts. Okay.
So, um, the the AI models definitely understand nuance differences between prompts that seem very similar but are not. They have different intent and different goals, right? Best gardening toolkit for kids is a very different intent than I want to buy them a bunch of I want to win their love with gifts and I want them to grow outside. I was thinking about gardening as a hobby. What are some of the gardening gifts, product ideas, beginner gifts I can give them? So, it's the exact same thing. So, it's dumb to do this. And again, the in the agency example, it's the same thing, right? I own a digital marketing agency and I want to start offering SEO services to my clients.
>> I I'm not going to do the example for the agency though to not have ChatGPT think I'm divorcing my wife or that my wife just divorced me. Maybe I should have used those examples. We'll see what happens next time my wife has a question for ChatGPT.
What AI software do you recommend I use to get things done faster? Right? It's basically the same thing. So, what would we do then? Well, I'd go for stuff like this, right? um best autoblogging software for SEO or agency SEO software with autoblogging feature. So just this for example again, sure, it we're looking for targeting the the keyword agency SEO software, but we're going hyper specific in terms of the feature or something like for example, LLM rank tracker multiple, uh, for SEO multiple accounts. Well, we can extrapolate that someone looking for for LLM rank tracker is in is in the AI space, right? That anybody need to include this right here. Uh, and typing in multiple accounts, well, we can extrapolate as well that they are um someone with multiple projects or multiple clients. So, they could be an agency. So, hopefully this makes sense. Don't make the make sure that the prompts have different intents because if you're just doing this multiple prompts that all them have the same intent, well, this doesn't make any sense. You're just wasting time. Hopefully, that makes sense so far.
Okay. Then after you have the after you have the list of prompts you want to you want you want your brand to be mentioned for, right? And you have a list, well, step two is of course, uh, just check the cited sources and the type of content. For example, let's go into Claude again. I'm just using Claude and we'll use Claude again because we we'll build out this master prompt. It's going to be very important. But I'm using Claude for research. You can use anything you want. Google's AI mode, ChatGPT, it doesn't really matter what you use. Um, so, so yeah, but, um, if again, one of the prompts on my list was was this right here, I'll just search it right here. Or I could just do the same thing in Google's AI mode. Just pop this right here, AI mode, right? And what I want to look at is the brands, right, for this search prompt. What are the brands being mentioned? And not only do I want to look at the brands right here, because again, if I want to show up for this prompt, right, which I don't, my actually we do, but let's assume we don't, right? Um, well, I want to look at sure at the brands, but then at the sources that are being cited because again, the only reason why all these brands
>> so it's important to keep in mind that he's just like, oh, I'm showing up here. The the challenge with this is that I he Google knows who he is and all the AI systems know who he is. We can see right that Claude says hi Vasco, right on top right. So Google knows who he is. Google knows what websites he goes to. ChatGPT knows what he's working on. Claude knows what he's working on and the models and Google, they're much more likely to show you things you're already familiar with because for most people that's what they actually want to see. So that's a little bit of an unfair comparison for him to be showing it in this way.
Brands show up right here, right? Is because well Google's AI mode went in and searched through sources, right? And on these sources, right, these brands are mentioned. For example, this right here is being cited as a source. And lo and behold, well, a lot of the brands are that are right here talked about in this content are the ones who are being pulled in by Google and mentioned right here. Okay, so reason why you want to do this again. Reason why you want to get after you make a list of prompts, test the prompts is because you want to look at the type of content that's out there. Okay? And and I'll show how to build this content. Don't worry, but you want to look at the type of content because if for this search prompt or whichever search prompt you want to rank for, I want to or I or want to get cited for all the um citations are basically listicles, which in this case they are 12 best, 12 best, 7 best, 11 best, 16 best. We tested 12 again. Google is really cracking down on these self-promotional listicles. So, this might work like when he recorded this, but it very quickly is going to stop working where you just won't be able to publish a listicle on your website and then put yourself on that listicle and have an LLM cite it as if it were a reputable source. Uh, that used to work, but it just really isn't anymore. As Google cracks down on it, uh, danks them, uh, de-indexes them, the LLMs just won't be able to find them because they rely on Google to find websites. And this update literally rolled out in March of 2026.
>> Right? All these are basically listical types of content. Okay? And in fact, we we actually are being are being cited right here, which is good. Um, all these are like listical types of content. So, this tells me literally these are LLMs literally tells tell us what they want. Just like in Google, if I type in how to tie a tie, right? Google tells me what it wants. It wants short-form content, clearly, right? Because it's the thing the closest to the the left-hand side. And I hear short-form, video, images, short-form, short-form, short, all short-form. And maybe then not even on the first page. So literally Google tells you what it wants. Just like LLMs. LLMs tell you what they want. Literally like they literally tell you what they want, right? In this case, what they want is and what they feel like satisfies the search intent of this prompt the best is info that's present in listicles. So test it. Literally test out. This is free to test out. Just test it out on on your own uh terms. And again, don't try to produce different types of content because it it wants this that that's in the cited sources. Okay? And again, you can do this in ChatGPT.
So, he's not wrong here. We call this the open book test. It works with LLMs. It works with Google itself. Whenever you're interested in how someone ranked for a specific search query or got recommended because of a certain prompt, just type the prompt in. Type the search query in and the system will show you exactly what you need to do to rank for it. Yeah, just like an open book test. I see all these have uh sources they cite. Okay, so that's that's step two.
Now, of course, you also want to track stuff. Uh, you can use Arvo to track this stuff. We basically allow you to uh go here. You can just add your brand right here and you want to add your brand, whatever. And just basically allows you to track uh your brand mentions all across these LLMs, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, and also the sentiment. Like if they do mention you, are they saying good or bad things about you? So you can just track all this stuff, which um, which is pretty cool, right? And then you can add as many prompts as you want right here or just basically bulk import prompts. And again, I can show you some examples right here for the prompt, how to automatically generate and post articles to my blog. If I click here, I can see, okay, we show up in Perplexity. And if I click even further, I can see where we show up and we show up here in a table. But for example, for the prompt, uh, um, is Arvo the best AI O tool software? Well, we show up for all of them because again, we have of course the brand name in the prompt, so of course we'll show up. But uh, Grok says negative, excuse me, where is it? Yeah. Grok says bad things about us, negative sentiment. I can click here and say, yeah, sure, was not the best one. And these are all the sources it mentioned.
So then I can take this info and basically a lot of these LLM trackers have come out in the last year or two. I've tested a lot of them. I haven't specifically tested this one, so I won't comment on this one. But a lot of the ones that I have tested just don't work very well because of the issue I showed you with how the prompts give very different results depending on even small nuances in the prompts that the AI is picking up on, right? Um, those small differences are going to result in different things being recommended. So, it can be incredibly difficult to like rank track LLM prompts. I haven't yet found a tool that does this well enough that I actually want to use it. For now, we use simple Google Analytics to track how much traffic client websites are getting from the different AI systems. Google Analytics will tell you if anyone has clicked from the AI systems onto the client's website. Either get in touch with these sources to maybe change the sentiment or create new sources, right? To sort of try and change the sentiment, right? Because I I want LLMs to mention my brand, but I also want them to say good things about me. And so, you can track stuff using um Arvo's LLM rank tracker, which is pretty cool because again, it's going to be quite hard to do this stuff if you're not tracking. And um, yeah, I think we're the best one, but of course, I'm 100% biased.
Now, here's where Claude comes in, right? Your goal, your whole goal is to produce a similar piece of content, but better. And for that, you're going to use this mega mega master prompt, which uh if you want access to this, just DM me on Twitter or Yeah, DM me because I really I I guess No, never mind. Just comment below prompt and I and I think YouTube now has a um a DM feature. So yeah, comment the word prompt and I'll just DM you on YouTube because I really do think that I think it was this month that they implemented this. You can now DM people on YouTube. It's pretty cool. So comment the word prompt and I'll send you the master prompt. The reason why this is valuable is because you can just go here and take in, right? Uh, let me just show you for example, I'll give you an example. So, uh, right here, one of the um um again, one of these uh U pages it cited was this, which looks like trash by the way. What I can do is I can take this URL. Okay. I can take the title as well right here. I can copy the URL. I can place it right here into my master prompt. Uh, so my website, of course, I can put here the the competitor URL of the content I want to beat, which is this right here. Because again, the whole goal of this master prompt is to be able to create a piece of content, right? That's better than this one. Because, and by the way, like this has a DR of 28. Uh, never mind. This is another one. This has a DR of let's see, six. Six. It's nothing, right? So, if this source is being cited with six, because I I know people would say,
>> DR isn't a very reliable metric these days anymore. We largely stopped using it because ranking position, it used to correlate reasonably well with DR. I think like maybe 50-60% at the highest. It's gone down a lot. How much ranking position correlates with DR? So, we just don't use it anymore.
Say, "Yeah, but they're only being cited because their DR is like uh 50 something and if I produce a similar piece of content, I'll never get cited because even though my piece of content is better, their DR is higher." No, their DR is six and they're being cited again. I show up for this prompt that I want to show up for because my brand is included in this piece of content. So the the theory is, okay, let me produce, I if I did not actually, yeah, if I did not show up for this prompt, well, what I'll do is I'd click and see the brands that show up, the sources where they show up in, and then create a better piece of content. And again, doesn't matter about the DR because with the DR six, the brands on here are still being mentioned. So what I do again is I take this right right here. Take this URL, put in the master prompt right here, put my my site URL, and this will basically allow you to write and you paste this into Claude, allow you to write an amazing piece of content, better than the one that's currently being set up for the for the prompt. Yeah, I got to completely disagree there. I mean, if you give Claude one prompt and say, "Hey, rewrite this content, but better with these goals in mind," the content is going to come up with is typically going to be fairly poor and score incredibly high on AI detectors. In order to get content written by AI to score lower on AI detectors, we use a multi-pass process where each pass we're doing something very specifically different to undo all of the telltale signs of how AI writes content. One example, AI typically writes sentences of very similar length. Humans don't do that. Humans vary sentence length all the time. So when we're writing content with AI, we go an extra pass. And literally this pass, all it does is it varies the sentence length, uh, so that it doesn't look like AI wrote it. There's also a lot of structures that AI very commonly uses. Uh, we have another pass that goes through and removes those structures. So you have to do a lot of things with AI-generated content to make it not look like AI-generated content and a single prompt just isn't going to be able to do that prompt that you want to rank for.
And let me show you an example live right here. There you go. So this right here was done with the master prompt, all excuse me, all done with um, with the master prompt and this is based off of all done off of um, this article right here. The only reason why I have it built right here is because there was a guy, there was a brand ranking. Excuse me. There was a brand, right, that was being mentioned for a prompt I wanted to be mentioned for, but I wasn't being mentioned for, but they were. So, I looked at where and why they were being mentioned. And they were being mentioned in this prompt because they were I got to just point out again, look at the date, July 30th, 2025. This listicle strategy, self-mentioning listicles, it really just doesn't work anymore. I know July 30th, 2025 was not that long ago, but it was two Google algorithm spam updates ago and that's enough. Their brand was mentioned in this similar article that was being cited for that prompt. Hopefully that made sense. So what I did, well, I just copied the URL of that uh cited article and said and used the master prompt right here to make it even better and it built out the whole thing. Of course, mentions Arvo as the best tool and then then I just take this and put this onto my site. Right, that's it. And by the way, if you're wondering how fast this works, well, this right here was posted uh last month, like not even 30. Yeah, sort of 30 a month ago, right? This works fast. LLM work fast. So, no longer do you have to wait like six months. No, you can just wait weeks or even days or even hours. We've had stuff that run up in hours. Just as long as you can get stuff indexed. So, because it needs to be indexed so it gets pulled in, because if not, if it's not indexed, it's never going to get pulled in, right? Um, but it just works fast and I'm not sure for how long it's going to work for, but I feel like this workflow of checking
>> at this point we know how long it worked for and um, yeah, it stopped working unfortunately.
Pulling in the prompts, or you can use Arvo or not to track it, whatever. Pulling in the prompts, checking the the the brands are being pulled in for the prompts you want to show for, right? Of of your list, right? Checking the cited sources and then using something like a master prompt to make a thing a piece of content that's 10 times better, right? And again, don't focus on on the DR because this this the some of the sources being cited have a shitty DR. So, this doesn't matter. It's all about the content. So, this is working right now. Okay.
Now, reason why I use Claude.
>> I do agree that DR doesn't matter. He and I are on the same page there.
Uh for for the master prompt is because I I prefer the the output of this. It just looks better because Claude is able to add these um I mean, it just looks more beautiful. That being said, it doesn't need to look beautiful, clearly like this. This is awful and it is this is awful and it's being cited and it's helping my brand be mentioned for a prompt I wanted to be mentioned too. So it really doesn't have to be to look good. So there you go. So you don't even have to use Claude page subscription, just use ChatGPT or just use Arvo right here. Reason why you want to use Arvo and I guess it's um it's the next step is in case you want to automate the whole thing and do it like do it like in bulk. Uh, you can just use Arvo for that because you can just use Arvo to mass produce across multiple prompts, industries, and even languages. You can just go here to blog automation, new campaign, uh, new campaign right here. Name this whatever you want. Uh, enable autoblog full automation. Well, hit continue. You can just say, hey, publish 10 articles every single uh, every single week, right? And you basically be you're connecting Arvo directly with your CMS. Uh, whichever one it is, we connect with all of these right here. Um, all these right here. It basically you have you have automatically generating posting articles for the prompts you want to rank for, of course, to your site all the time in mass. So you basically increase your likelihood and your probability of getting cited by the LLMs.
>> Yeah. So mass generating content like this is just not effective anymore. This is basically producing AI slop. This is what Google has been rolling out updates over and over again for the past couple of years to try and stop. Even if this works temporarily, and this specific method of listicles doesn't anymore, but whatever method you're using, if you're mass-producing AI-generated slop, it won't work for very long. Google is getting better and better at finding AI-generated slop and not indexing it, which means not showing it to the LLMs that you're trying to impress with your listicles. We do, what we focus on is every time we publish an article, we're going to find external support, external relevance, external trust for that article. That's how Google works. And the AI models look at that also. So you want to get a link to every new article in order to show Google that these new articles aren't just AI-generated slop. By the way, if you're wondering, does AI content rank? Well, yes. Like if you go to arvo.com/casad, actually these guys, I've showed you to this. I've shown you this often. Excuse me.
>> Yeah. 100% AI-generated content ranks, right? Google ranks AI-generated content all the time. The vast majority of content that's being published right now is AI-generated. So, I'm not saying don't use AI. What I'm saying is use it intelligently. Don't mass-produce uh AI-generated content straight to your website without reviewing it. Right? We still have a human editor. Make sure that the content passes AI detection tests. Make sure that the content, you know, is similar, but it actually adds something to the conversation, to the website, right? We know that it's very difficult to get like AI-generated slop indexed on Google these days. Um, even if it's designed well, if it looks nice, if it's just slop that doesn't add anything based on the other results that Google already is ranking, Google is unlikely to index it. So this like mass production of slop, I mean, I can be very happy to say this really just doesn't work like it used to work even a few months ago. All these are AI content. It does rank. Also, by the way, I can show you one live example right here. arvo.com. Uh, I think it's this right here. Yeah, this is fully done with Arvo and it is ranking right away. It's as soon as it got indexed, boom, started ranking. Okay. And by the way, ranks for actually some valuable keywords, right? SEO software for agencies, best SEO software for agencies, SEO platform for agencies, best SEO software suite, software for SEO agencies. So, it's ranking for, we could argue whether those are actually valuable keywords or not. You can see the top location. Uh, you can see the position, uh, so on the second page for it. I mean, fine, whatever. I wouldn't be showing those off to a client, super excited about what they're ranking for. But yes, AI-generated content can rank, but it will rank better if you have a human review the content, improve the content, make sure it is human content, and then source external links to it for keywords. And it's all AI, all done with Arvo. Now, can AI produce bad quality content? Sure, but so can humans, right? So, this is all done with Arvo, by the way. So, it's pretty cool. It's ranking, um, just like all these other cases right here. Um, so yeah, you can fully automate the whole thing with Arvo. The cool thing is that I don't think there's anyone doing this that I know of. But you can fully set up multiple autoblogs and have one running in English, one running in Portuguese, other running in Spanish, other one running in Greek. So you can just multilingual bulk automate your whole SEO across platforms to increase your likelihood of being mentioned for prompts you want to show up for in multiple LLMs. So that's pretty cool. Again, just comment the word prompt. I'll just DM you this via YouTube. It's pretty valuable. But this is worthless if you don't do the whole other steps, which is again, making a list of prompts you want, putting them into whichever LLM you want, and then checking the citations and looking at the type of content that's ranking and then emulating that content, either using Arvo or Claude or whatever you want, right? Then you can fully automate, fully automate the whole thing with Arvo if you want. So that's it. Hopefully this was valuable. I'll do more of these uh Claude SEO workflows because you guys seem to enjoy it and yeah, uh comment the word prompt. I'll send you the master prompt.
And if >> kind of wondering why the title says how I use Claude code for SEO to rank number one and he didn't use Claude code in this video even once, even a little bit, like that's kind of weird for me. Uh, like why? Yeah, he didn't use Claude code. Why is that the title?
All right, so I just want to be super clear here. AI content isn't the problem. I use AI content. Pretty much every SEO, you know, uses AI content. So AI content is is fine. It's good. The problem here is publish and pray. That's a challenge, right? This guy's entire strategy is basically going to ignore everything that we focus on in SEO. It ignores your entity, your service area, your Google Business Profile, everything that actually drives calls for businesses. So, if you want to see how we use AI to generate content that's built around your actual services and reinforces your entity instead of destroying it, go watch this video right here. It's not generating spam. It's not autoblogging. It's just a system that actually works to get you ranked.