Comparisons
Who picks the topic: a keyword or a suggestion?
RankAI's record shows human approval of a version as the default. It does not say who selects the topic, whether a hand-entered keyword or a suggestion.
If you are building an editorial plan and asking who decides the topic between a hand-entered keyword and a suggestion, anchor the answer to what RankAI actually documents: the default is human approval of a version. The record does not establish who selects the topic, so we do not credit the choice to the user for the keyword or to the system for the suggestion. In practice, whether you start from a keyword you typed in or from a suggestion, the documented step is still review and approval of a version before publishing.
Two starting points, one documented step
A manual keyword and a suggestion can both be read as ways to begin editorial work. In the record they are not a split of who is in charge: we do not say the keyword belongs to the user and the suggestion to the system. We say both starting points sit alongside human approval of a version, which is the default. Automatic publishing is turned on per site and still goes through the checks: it is an option, not the starting behaviour.
How to compare the two modes without forcing the record
This is a working proposal from RankAI, not a universal standard. Its purpose is to compare the two starting points while staying inside what we can state.
- Define the starting point. Verifiable criterion: the editorial plan entry records whether the topic came from a hand-entered keyword or from a suggestion, without inferring who decided.
- Check the approval step. Verifiable criterion: each version has a moment of human approval before publishing, consistent with the default.
- Check the status of automatic publishing. Verifiable criterion: any activation is shown per site and the associated checks are present, not implied.
- Note the limit of the record. Verifiable criterion: the plan does not assign topic selection to either party, because the record does not establish it.
AI visibility and the editorial plan: what we can say
On AI visibility, RankAI's public pages name ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Grok and Google AI. Claude and Grok are measured only after you connect them. Gemini and Google AI Overviews are not the same observation: keep them distinct in the editorial plan, because they do not describe the same phenomenon. These points concern how visibility is observed; they do not establish who selects the topic.
The useful point of this comparison is to separate two levels that often get merged: how a topic enters the editorial plan, and how a version gets approved. RankAI's record documents the second level, meaning human approval of a version as the default, and describes automatic publishing as a per-site option subject to checks. It does not document a rule that assigns topic selection to the user when the start is a keyword, or to the system when the start is a suggestion. For anyone working on an editorial plan, the practical consequence is this: record the starting point as context, not as proof of who decides. That keeps the comparison between a manual keyword and a suggestion verifiable, and avoids attributions the record does not support. The same caution applies to AI visibility: naming the engines observed does not mean the observation covers every aspect, and Gemini versus Google AI Overviews remains a distinction to keep.
Verifiable limit
The limit sits in the record itself: RankAI does not establish who selects the topic between a hand-entered keyword and a suggestion. We can state human approval of a version as the default and automatic publishing per site subject to checks; we cannot state a split of selection. For the full picture of features, see the feature page.