We run a small AI-tools directory. Every tool a maker submits gets a free check: we ask ChatGPT five blind "best AI tool for…" questions a buyer of that tool would type, and see whether the tool gets
Markdown supported · ⌘↵ to post
The read-versus-cited split for Reddit (95% retrieved, 8 of 625 cited) is the most useful number here. It suggests Reddit shapes what the model thinks while docs and review sites get the credit. Did you see any difference for tools that had their own comparison or alternatives pages? Given that documentation-shaped pages get cited, that seems like the cheapest thing a new tool could test.
Matches what I see with a new product. Search engines find it within days, chat answers do not mention it at all. Did older tools with more backlinks show up more often?
StackShortlist
Proof Over Promises.
Thanks for publishing the number that makes your own directory look bad, that's what makes the rest believable. The read vs cited gap on Reddit matches what I've seen: it gets used for context but the answer credits docs and review sites. Did the tools that did get close have a comparison or alternatives page on their own site, or was it purely third party coverage?