Bowman's argument: getting cited by AI now depends on your reviews, your reputation, and your operations, not just your content. For you, that means the Google reviews, bar
If your site runs on WordPress, this matters. Mullenweg is out at Automattic, which raises real questions about WordPress's direction. No immediate action needed, but now is a
A federal judge in an active antitrust case called Google's AI Overviews "really unfair" to publishers. If you publish content to get found, that content is
ChatGPT now retrieves content differently, and the gap between "pulled into context" and "actually cited" is where most content disappears. If you want your name showing
Readers are getting faster at spotting AI-generated filler, and so are the search systems ranking it. If your byline is on content that reads like everyone else's,
ChatGPT picks brands to query before it ever fetches live results. Being in that pre-selected set is worth roughly 33x more than showing up in the retrieval step. For
Legal content is YMYL too, which means the same standards that determine whether a health article gets cited in AI answers apply to your writing. This piece breaks down what
Keywords are losing ground to topics. If you've been writing one-off posts on whatever came to mind, this explains why a tighter focus on a specific practice
If you've been putting off video because you weren't sure where to start, this is a current look at what's actually working for attorneys
Cloudflare is arguing that AI agents are a new class of visitor, with a real human behind every query. That reframes the whole GEO question: you're not optimizing
Your publish.law site now works from inside Claude or ChatGPT. Add a credential, publish a note, schedule one for the morning, catch up on what's waiting, all
Research confirms AI cites broadly but only recommends names it associates with a specific topic repeatedly. If your writing covers a little of everything, you're getting mentioned nowhere
