bemoshiur · Aug 5, 2026 · Aug 5, 2026
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+name: linkedin-post
+description: Draft a daily LinkedIn post for S M Moshiur Rahman about business development, grounded in a real problem he hit that day and real numbers from OmniRank. Use when he says "linkedin post", "today's post", "draft a post", or describes friction he wants written up.
+---
+
+# Daily LinkedIn post
+
+Draft one post in Moshiur's voice. He is **Director, Business & Operations at TICON System
+Limited** — a practitioner writing about what he actually hit today, not a marketer.
+
+## The one rule
+
+**A post needs a real thing that happened.** If he hasn't given you one, ask for it before
+drafting. Do not manufacture a scenario, and do not fall back on general SEO advice — that
+is the failure mode. Generic "5 tips for better SEO" content reads as filler, performs
+badly, and costs credibility that specific writing earns.
+
+Acceptable raw material: a prospect conversation, an objection he couldn't answer, a
+measurement that surprised him, something he was wrong about, a tool result, a decision he
+had to make with incomplete information.
+
+## Structure that works
+
+1. **A hook that is a fact, not a claim.** Ideally a number or a short admission.
+   "I ran our own website through a tool I built. 57 pages. Not one had an answer an AI
+   could quote." Never open with "In today's digital landscape".
+2. **The problem, stated concretely** — what he actually ran into, in two or three short
+   paragraphs. Short lines. LinkedIn truncates around 200 characters, so the first two
+   lines carry the whole post.
+3. **Evidence.** Real numbers, indented as a small block. See below for pulling them.
+4. **What he did or concluded** — including the uncomfortable part if there is one.
+5. **One specific question.** Not "thoughts?" — something a reader can answer in a sentence
+   from their own experience.
+6. **Link only if it earns its place.** github.com/bemoshiur/OmniRank when relevant.
+7. **4–7 hashtags**, lowercase-natural, no keyword stuffing.
+
+Target 1,300–2,000 characters. Longer gets collapsed behind "see more".
+
+## Getting real numbers
+
+Never invent a statistic. When a post would benefit from data, measure it:
+
+```bash
+cd "<repo>" && .venv/bin/python -m omnirank.cli audit https://<site> --out /tmp/post.json
+```
+
+Then read `/tmp/post.json` for exact per-layer scores and finding counts. Quote what the
+tool actually printed. If a number can't be measured, cut the claim rather than soften it.
+
+Research already in the repo that can be cited honestly — with its caveats intact — lives in
+`docs/research/`. The brand-mention and AI-citation correlations there are **observational,
+mostly English-language B2B, and directional**. Say so if you use them.
+
+## Voice
+
+- First person, past tense, specific.
+- Admit the unflattering part. A Director saying his own site scored 33/100 is more
+  credible than any polished claim, because nobody fakes that direction.
+- No "game-changer", "leverage", "unlock", "in today's world", "the truth is".
+- No em-dash-heavy rhetorical flourishes. Plain sentences.
+- Never claim a result the work hasn't produced. No client names without permission.
+
+## Angles not yet used
+
+Track these so the daily cadence doesn't repeat itself. Cross one off when used.
+
+- [x] Ran my own company's site through my own tool (used 2026-08-05)
+- [ ] A prospect asked a question I couldn't answer with data, so I built the measurement
+- [ ] The thing I believed about SEO that turned out to be wrong when measured
+- [ ] Why our analytics under-report AI traffic, and by roughly how much
+- [ ] A bug in my own tool that would have given a client bad advice — and what I changed
+- [ ] What a Bangladeshi B2B buyer actually does before contacting a vendor
+- [ ] The difference between ranking and being cited, with numbers
+- [ ] Why I removed a feature instead of shipping it
+- [ ] What "AI-ready content" means concretely, at the markup level
+- [ ] A competitor comparison I ran that didn't flatter us
+
+## Before handing it over
+
+State plainly that **you cannot publish to LinkedIn** — there is no integration. Write the
+post to a file, give him the path, and let him paste it.
+
+Flag anything in the draft that exposes the company publicly (a poor score, an internal
+mistake) so he can decide, rather than deciding for him.
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+I ran our own website through a tool I'd been building. 57 pages.
+
+Not one of them had an answer an AI could quote.
+
+---
+
+Here's the problem I keep running into in business development.
+
+A prospect used to find us by searching, landing on a page, and reading it. Increasingly they don't. They ask ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini "who does data engineering in Bangladesh" — and they read whatever those engines say back.
+
+If your page has no clean, liftable answer near the top, the engine has nothing to quote. You are not ranked low. You are absent from the conversation.
+
+And here's the part that makes it hard to catch: you can't see it in your analytics. Most AI referrals arrive with no referrer at all, so they land in "Direct". Whatever number you're looking at is a floor, not a measure.
+
+---
+
+So I built something to measure it, and pointed it at ticonsys.com first.
+
+  57 pages audited
+  Answer-engine readiness: 33/100
+  57 pages with no h1
+  57 pages with no canonical URL
+  57 pages with nothing an AI could lift and cite
+
+Not a great look for the guy writing this post. But you can't fix what you refuse to measure, and I'd rather find it than have a prospect's ChatGPT session find it for me.
+
+---
+
+The tool is open source. MIT licensed, no signup, runs on your machine:
+
+github.com/bemoshiur/OmniRank
+
+  pip install, point it at any URL, get a scored report
+
+It checks three things at once, because search crawlers, answer engines and generative engines all read the same HTML: classic SEO, answer-engine readiness, and whether AI crawlers can actually ingest your site as a source.
+
+It also does something the commercial tools structurally cannot — it runs inside your repository, so it tells you *which file* is wrong, not just which URL.
+
+---
+
+If you run it on your own site, I'd genuinely like to know what it found — especially if it flagged something that turned out to be wrong. Precision is the whole point, and I'd rather hear about a false positive than not.
+
+What's your site scoring?
+
+#SEO #AEO #GEO #AISearch #BusinessDevelopment #OpenSource #Bangladesh