Show IH: I built a tool that tells site owners what content to create — looking for 10 people to break it
Been building PlanMoon for a few months. The problem I kept seeing: site owners know they need content to get traffic but have no idea what to actually write. They guess, copy competitors, or buy keyword lists that never turn into a real plan.
You give PlanMoon your URL, it maps your competitive landscape, finds content gaps, and builds a prioritized content calendar. It also covers AI search visibility — ChatGPT, Perplexity — not just Google.
Beta is live. Still rough. Not looking for compliments, looking for people who will actually use it and tell me what's broken.
Free access, no strings → planmoon.app
Trending on Indie Hackers
Really interesting approach! I just launched an AI tool
for freelancers that automates proposals and client
management. The distribution problem is real — how did
you get your first testers? Did you reach out manually
or did Show IH do the work?
The "what to publish next" problem is real. Most service-business founders I work with either have no list or a 200-item one they'll never touch, so a prioritized calendar tied to actual gaps beats another keyword dump. The AI search visibility angle is the smart bet here, ChatGPT and Perplexity citations follow different rules than Google rankings. Over at SocialPost.ai we see creation is rarely the bottleneck, discipline to ship on schedule is. Are you surfacing publish cadence per client based on how much volume the topic needs to compete, or just topic priority?
That's a good idea ! well done!
thank you 🙏 give it a try at planmoon.app, would love your feedback
The execution bottleneck point that came up in your comments is the real one. Most founders I've seen with solid content plans still get zero traction because the content never reaches anyone outside their immediate network. Curious how you're thinking about distribution once the calendar is built, are you relying purely on organic search or are you pushing the content through other channels too?
distribution is a real gap and you're right that most content plans die because nobody sees them
right now planmoon covers blog content with direct wordpress publishing, but we also generate plans for linkedin and instagram alongside the blog — so it's not just SEO, it's cross-channel
integrations for social publishing aren't there yet, wordpress is the only direct publish for now. but the plan itself covers all three channels so at least the strategy is there even if the one-click publish isn't yet
that's on the roadmap 🙏
Just signed up. Been struggling with the same problem for my own project so will actually put this through its paces. Will let you know what breaks.
Quick question — does it work well for newer sites with not much data yet?
really glad you signed up, looking forward to your feedback
for newer sites — it works but the more data you have the better the output. if GSC is connected it helps a lot, but even without it planmoon can still map your competitive landscape and find gaps based on your niche and URL
so short answer: yes it works, just gets sharper over time as your site grows 🙏
The problem you're solving is real — most content tools tell you what keywords to chase, not what gaps actually matter for your business model. The prioritization layer is the hard part.
One thing worth stress-testing as you get early users: the quality of the recommendations will depend heavily on how clean the underlying data signals are. Search volume and competitor rankings are often stale or misleading — especially for AI search visibility which is still moving too fast to have reliable baselines.
The real unlock IMO is when the tool can cross-reference what you're ranking for vs. what's actually driving conversions, not just traffic. That gap between "this keyword gets traffic" and "this content actually moves the business" is where most content strategies quietly fail.
I spend a lot of time helping founders find those gaps in their data — built some free SQL diagnostic scripts specifically for validating whether your funnel metrics are telling the right story → https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/psmqnx
Curious how you're thinking about the signal quality problem as you scale to more sites.
the signal quality problem is real and honestly one of the harder things to get right — search volume data is often stale and AI search visibility has no reliable baseline yet
the traffic vs conversion gap you're describing is where i want to go — right now planmoon is more on the traffic/visibility side but connecting that to what actually moves the business is the next layer
GSC integration helps bridge some of that gap since it shows what's actually getting clicks not just impressions, but you're right that it's still not the full picture
appreciate the thought, something i'm actively thinking about as more sites come in 🙏
The 'looking for 10 people to break it' framing is right, but most beta feedback comes back as 'this crashed' rather than 'I saw the calendar and never acted on it.' The second one is where the real product gaps live, and they stay invisible unless you ask testers directly what they did not do in their first session. Worth pairing the bug-hunt prompt with a question about friction at the planning-to-publish handoff. Happy to run it against SocialPost.ai's content workflow and report back honestly.
that's a really sharp distinction — "this crashed" feedback is easy to collect but "i saw it and never acted" is where the real problems hide
adding a specific question about what they didn't do in the first session is something i'm going to start doing with every tester now, genuinely hadn't framed it that way
would love to have you run it against SocialPost.ai's workflow — that kind of structured comparison from someone who knows content workflows well is exactly what i need. planmoon.app, just sign up and let me know what you hit 🙏
The "looking for 10 people to break it" framing is smart - most people would say beta test, but you're specifically inviting people to find the holes. That kind of honesty usually attracts better feedback.
yeah "beta test" always sounds too polished — i genuinely want people to find what's broken before i convince myself it's fine
if you want to take a swing at it, planmoon.app 🙏
The AI search visibility angle is the most interesting part for me. Most content gap tools work off SERP scrapes, which is a known game with known data. ChatGPT and Perplexity don't expose query volume or surfacing patterns publicly, so I'm curious what signal you're pulling from. Are you running queries through these models and parsing what they cite, or is it more inference based on the topical authority patterns LLMs seem to reward?
The other thing I'd flag from running content for a small site recently: gap detection itself is the easy part. The harder question is whether a gap exists because nobody has covered it, or because the topic gets zero organic search attention. Both look the same to a crawler. Curious how PlanMoon distinguishes between the two when prioritizing the calendar.
really good technical question — right now it's a mix. i do run prompts through the models and check what gets cited, combined with inference based on topical authority patterns. live querying at scale is still being refined but the citation checking is already part of the process
the gap vs zero-demand distinction is sharp — that's a real problem and honestly one i don't have fully solved yet. right now prioritization factors in search signal strength alongside the gap, so a topic with no search attention should rank lower even if competitors haven't covered it. but whether that's working well enough in practice is exactly what i need testers to stress test
would love to have you run a site through it with that specific question in mind — planmoon.app 🙏
interesting
glad it caught your eye — feel free to try it at planmoon.app 🙏
Solid space. The "site owners know they need content but don't know what to write" pain is real, and most existing tools (Surfer, Frase, Clearscope) sit too close to keyword data and too far from actual content strategy.
One trap worth flagging though. Most AI content planning tools are trained on scraped SEO blogs and competitor articles, which means the "strategy" they output is just averaged internet noise repackaged. Users follow the plan, post 30 articles, rank for nothing because everyone else got the same averaged advice.
We ran into this building HiveMind (AI strategy copilot for marketing). The only fix was to stop training on random internet content entirely and rebuild on real marketers' knowledge and shipped campaigns, not blog posts summarizing campaigns. Different output.
Worth being clear with PlanMoon users where the recommendations come from. "Content gaps" pulled from scraped competitor sites is one product. "Content gaps" verified against patterns from actual converting niches is a different product. The tools that win this category long-term will be the ones that can credibly answer where their strategy data comes from.
this is a fair and important flag — the "averaged internet noise" problem is real and it's something i think about a lot
the honest answer is planmoon's recommendations come from competitor gap analysis + search signals, not from a model trained on random SEO blogs. but you're right that being explicit about where the strategy data comes from is something i should do better on the product itself — right now it's not clear enough to the user
the distinction you're making between "gaps from scraped competitors" vs "gaps verified against converting patterns" is a real one and where i want to push the product over time
will check out HiveMind — curious how you solved the data sourcing problem in practice
Interesting positioning. The focus on actionable content planning instead of just keyword lists makes this stand out. Curious how users are responding to the AI search visibility feature so far.
early feedback is that the AI search angle is what's catching people's attention the most — seems like a lot of site owners have started noticing their traffic patterns shifting and don't have a tool that addresses it yet
still early days but that's the part i'm most excited about. would love to know what you think after trying it → planmoon.app 🙏
Interesting angle. A lot of content tools stop at keyword lists, but the real bottleneck is usually deciding what is actually worth publishing next.
The AI-search visibility piece is especially interesting because the content that gets cited by ChatGPT or Perplexity often feels different from the content that simply ranks in Google.
One thing I’d be curious about: does PlanMoon help distinguish between content that drives traffic and content that actually attracts the right buyer? That feels like the hard part.
Good framing on “looking for people to break it” too, that usually gets much better feedback than generic beta signups.
you nailed the hard part — traffic vs right buyer is exactly where most content strategies quietly fail
right now planmoon factors in intent and positioning when prioritizing, so it's not just chasing traffic volume. but "will this attract the right buyer" is still not deep enough and i know that
that's honestly one of the things i'm hoping testers will help me figure out — whether the output actually points toward converting traffic or just any traffic
would love to have you try it and tell me if it feels like it's solving the right problem → planmoon.app 🙏
Solid idea — content planning is painful and most tools just dump keyword lists without a real strategy. The AI search visibility angle (ChatGPT, Perplexity) is smart, especially now.
One observation from someone who's also building a validation tool (TrendyRevenue): the biggest mistake site owners make isn't just guessing content — it's building content for an audience that doesn't exist or a problem nobody's searching for.
That's why I built TrendyRevenue – an AI tool that validates startup ideas in 10 seconds: market demand, competitor gaps, revenue potential. For PlanMoon, if you're thinking of adding a feature like "content opportunity score" or expanding into a new niche (e.g., e-commerce or SaaS), run it through the free tier first (one analysis, no card). It'll tell you which direction has real search demand vs just hype.
The Pro plan ($39/mo) adds source-cited competitor gaps + revenue modeling — the deeper evidence to back your product roadmap.
Since you're in Show IH for feedback: your landing page value prop is clear, but I'd love to see a sample content calendar output before signing up. Also, how are you differentiating from tools like SurferSEO's content planner or Frase?
Either way, respect for shipping and asking for real feedback. Following your journey.
fair point on showing a sample output before signup — that's good landing page feedback and something i'm adding to the new version
on differentiation from Surfer and Frase — both are great at optimizing content you've already decided to write. planmoon is about deciding what to write in the first place, and doing it across both google and AI search surfaces not just traditional SEO
different entry point in the workflow 🙏
Interesting angle — most SEO tools stop at keywords, but the real struggle is knowing what content actually moves someone toward a decision.
Curious whether you plan to go beyond traffic and help identify “buyer-intent” content too, not just search volume.
yes that's exactly the direction — right now it's more visibility focused but buyer intent scoring is something i'm actively thinking about
the gap between "this gets traffic" and "this moves someone toward a decision" is where most content strategies fail quietly
would love to know if that comes through when you try it → planmoon.app 🙏
This is a really interesting approach to content strategy. Most tools just look at what's currently ranking, but finding 'gaps' based on what AI search is looking for is a clever pivot. Are you using a specific API for the AI search data, or is it a custom scraper?
glad the angle resonates — keeping the technical details close to the chest for now but it's a mix of approaches rather than relying on a single API
happy to have you try it and see how the output feels in practice → planmoon.app 🙏
The AI search visibility angle is the sleeper insight in this. Content that ranks in Google and content that gets cited by ChatGPT or Perplexity are genuinely different outputs. Google rewards comprehensiveness. AI tools reward precision and definitional clarity. If this tool can identify that gap specifically, it's solving a problem most content strategists haven't articulated yet.
The local service business angle is also wide open. Plumber in Denver, estate attorney in Tampa, HVAC in Phoenix. Their content gap problem is real but nobody is building for them. Every content tool is built assuming you care about domain authority and backlinks. Local service businesses care about showing up when someone in their city types their problem into Google or ChatGPT. That's a different brief entirely.
Would sign up to test this.
you articulated the google vs AI content difference better than i have been honestly — "comprehensiveness vs precision and definitional clarity" is exactly it and i'm stealing that framing
and yes local service businesses are wide open, everyone builds for SaaS and e-commerce and ignores the plumber in denver who just needs to show up when someone nearby has a problem
please do sign up → planmoon.app, would love your feedback especially on those two angles 🙏
Ran tryreleaselog.com through it. The competitive landscape mapping was quick and the content gap identification was more useful than I expected for a product that's still rough. The one thing I'd push on: the output tells me what to write but not who's supposed to read it and what they're supposed to do next. For indie SaaS specifically the content problem isn't really discovery it's that founders write updates nobody sees because they have no distribution layer attached to the content. A changelog entry or a roadmap update is content too, and the question of whether it reaches the right user at the right moment is the same problem you're solving. I'm building ReleaseLog for exactly that tryreleaselog.com. Would be curious whether PlanMoon ever surfaces internal product communication as a content type or whether it's strictly focused on external SEO content.
really appreciate you actually running it through — that kind of specific feedback is exactly what i need
the "what to write but not who reads it and what they do next" gap is real and a fair critique. audience and intent at the output level is something i'm working on
the changelog as content angle is interesting — right now planmoon is focused on external SEO and AI search visibility, not internal product communication. but the underlying problem you're describing is the same: right content, right person, right moment
that's a clean positioning for ReleaseLog actually. will check it out
curious — when you ran tryreleaselog.com through, did the competitor mapping surface anything useful or was it mostly noise for an early stage product? 🙏
The thing that breaks most beta lists like this is not the product, it is the feedback you actually get back. I ran a similar 10-tester pilot last fall and 7 of the 10 ghosted within four days. The 3 who showed up were the difference between shipping and shelving. Two questions that filtered for the real testers: do you have a content backlog right now, and what did you try last that did not work. People who answer both with specifics will use the tool. People who answer in generalities are looking for a free seat. Filter ruthlessly on those two answers and you will get more signal from 3 testers than from 10 noisy ones
this is genuinely useful advice and i've already felt it — some signups never opened the product at all
those two questions are smart filters. "do you have a content backlog" and "what did you try last that didn't work" — someone with real answers to both has real pain, and real pain means real feedback
going to start asking these upfront before giving access. thank you for this 🙏
This is a really practical tool — content gaps are such a blind spot for most site owners. The AI search angle (ChatGPT, Perplexity) is smart. Most tools still only think about Google.
Quick question — how do you define a 'content gap'? Is it based on competitors ranking for keywords you don't have? Or something else?
Also, I'm building Bexra — Helping entrepreneurs find, build & grow. Not related, but always curious how other founders think about 'gaps.'
Happy to test PlanMoon and break it for you. Will DM you."
great question — content gap in planmoon is broader than just "keywords competitors rank for that you don't"
it looks at what topics are showing up across both google serp and AI search results for your niche, then cross-references what you've already covered. so it's more about where you're invisible across both surfaces, not just traditional keyword gaps
happy to have you break it — feel free to DM or just sign up directly at planmoon.app 🙏
will check out Bexra too, curious what "find, build & grow" looks like in practice
the “people know they need content but don’t know what to write” problem is very real
especially now with AI search changing how people discover content. feels like a lot of site owners are just publishing randomly and hoping something sticks 😅
curious — are the recommendations mostly keyword/data-driven right now, or does it also try to understand positioning + audience intent?
yes exactly — random publishing and hoping something sticks is basically the default strategy for most site owners right now 😅
it's both — starts with data (keywords, competitor gaps, search patterns) but tries to factor in positioning and intent too. so it's not just "here are keywords you're missing" but "here's what's missing given what your site is actually about"
that balance is still being refined honestly — would love to know if it feels right when you try it → planmoon.app, free access 🙏
One thing I keep noticing across a lot of these content systems is that they optimize for surface visibility signals before validating behavioural alignment.
Meaning:
…but the actual decision quality behind the content often stays weak.
A founder can technically be “winning” content production while still attracting the wrong audience, reinforcing weak positioning, or generating traffic that never converts into trust or action.
That is why the “generic SEO copy” problem keeps showing up in this thread.
It is usually not just a prompting problem or a content-brief problem. It is a signal integrity problem upstream.
The AI-search angle here is genuinely interesting because ChatGPT/Perplexity visibility seems to reward:
more than traditional long-form SEO authority structures.
Feels like we are moving from:
“who published the biggest content library”
toward:
“who most clearly resolves the user’s uncertainty fastest.”
That is a very different optimisation layer.
signal integrity problem upstream" is a really good way to put it — and honestly explains why a lot of content tools produce output that technically works but doesn't move anything meaningful
the shift you're describing from "biggest library" to "resolves uncertainty fastest" is exactly what i'm trying to build toward. shorter, more specific, higher intent matching
the hard part is most site owners are still being measured by their clients or bosses on vanity metrics — rankings, output volume — not whether the content actually resolved something for the reader
curious what you think the right upstream signal looks like in practice
One thing I keep coming back to is that the best upstream signals usually appear before the user fully articulates the problem.
Not in keyword volume, rankings, or CTR.
Usually they show up in repeated uncertainty patterns. The same clarification question appearing over and over, users rewording searches multiple times, hesitation before conversion, “almost solved” behaviour, emotionally loaded support messages, or comparison loops that never resolve into action.
That is where the real signal starts showing up because those patterns expose unresolved decision tension.
I think that is also why a lot of content systems technically perform while still failing to move anything meaningful. Visibility improves, output scales, rankings climb, but the user still leaves uncertain because the underlying friction was never resolved.
The systems that seem to win now are the ones reducing uncertainty with the least ambiguity and friction, not necessarily the ones producing the most content.
"repeated uncertainty patterns" is a really interesting frame — the same clarification question appearing over and over is exactly the kind of signal most content strategies ignore completely
it also explains why support tickets and sales call transcripts are often better content briefs than any keyword tool. the user is literally telling you what they couldn't find
the "almost solved" behaviour is what i want planmoon to eventually surface — not just what topics are missing but where users are getting close and dropping off
appreciate this thread honestly, it's sharpening how i think about what the product should actually be optimizing for 🙏
Love the “break it” mindset. One thing I’m curious about:
Also, would be cool to see a way to add editorial constraints so the plan doesn’t devolve into generic “SEO copy” while still ranking.
really good questions and honestly the wrong audience problem is something i'm still working through
right now the scoring goes beyond just search volume — it factors in intent and how well a topic fits the site's existing positioning. but ICP fit scoring is not deep enough yet, that's a gap i know exists
the editorial constraints idea is interesting — basically letting the user define guardrails so the output stays on brand and doesn't drift into generic SEO territory. that's not built yet but it's going on the list
would love to have you test it and see where it breaks for your use case — planmoon.app, free access 🙏
Saied, the part I keep getting stuck on with content tools — and I'd genuinely love to hear your take — is the gap between "here's a prioritized calendar" and the founder actually shipping the posts. When I was doing SEO for my last project, I had no shortage of plans. What I lacked was the will to write 40 briefs and then 40 drafts. The plan wasn't the bottleneck; execution was.
So my honest curiosity: are your beta users getting stuck at planning, or at production? Because if it's production, the AI-search-visibility angle becomes way more interesting — short, fast-to-publish answers to specific questions might beat a 2,000-word pillar piece for Perplexity surfacing anyway.
I'll poke at PlanMoon this week and send you what breaks. I'm Shirley, building ZooClaw — we turn solo founders' playbooks into AI agents, and content/SEO is one of the domains we're recruiting founding builders in. If a chat sounds useful once you've shipped a bit more, [email protected]. Otherwise just rooting for you. 🙌
Shirley this is exactly the right question honestly
you nailed it — execution is the real bottleneck, not planning. most of my beta users have the same problem you described
that's actually why i built the auto-publish part. the idea is planmoon doesn't just give you a calendar, it writes and publishes the content too. for now it's wordpress only but more platforms coming
and yes the AI search angle for short specific answers is something i'm thinking about a lot right now
will check out ZooClaw — sounds interesting. and yes please break it, looking forward to your feedback 🙏
The AI-search-visibility framing is the right wedge. Most content tools pretend Google is the only surface and ignore that ChatGPT now answers half the long-tail queries that used to land on blogs. Curious how PlanMoon scores 'visibility' for a domain on Perplexity or ChatGPT in practice. Are you testing the actual model with prompts and parsing whether your domain gets cited, or modeling it from training-cutoff signals? Those feel like very different signals and I'd guess most site owners conflate them.
really good question and honestly i'll be transparent — right now it's more modeled from signals than live prompt testing
the live testing approach (actually querying the models and checking citations) is the direction i want to go but it's not there yet
you're right that most site owners conflate them, and tbh most tools do too. that's part of what i'm trying to figure out in beta — what signals actually correlate with AI visibility in practice
if you have thoughts on this i'd genuinely love to hear them
The "not looking for compliments, looking for people who will actually use it" framing is rare on Show IH and frankly the right call. Two pieces of feedback from running the same beta-recruit phase for a small iOS memo app I'm building solo (a Captio replacement): the friction killer for me wasn't "free access" — it was a 30-second Loom that stripped "why bother trying" down to almost nothing. People will accept free but won't spend cognitive load learning a new dashboard. Second: the AI-search-visibility angle feels timely but under-sold on the landing page — that's what I'd lead with, not bury under "content calendar." Are you tracking which beta users come back twice in their first week? That signal has been more honest for me than signup numbers.
the loom idea is really good actually, i hadn't thought of that but you're right — free isn't enough if people don't immediately get what to do first
and the AI search angle — fair point, i'm actually working on a new landing page right now so good timing on that feedback
the "comes back twice in first week" metric is smart. i've been too focused on signups. gonna start tracking that now
what's the memo app? curious
I would absolutely love to test this. I swear my brain literally does not know where to begin with thinking about 'content' to create for social media haha
Haha the paralysis is real. Are you making any video content at all or purely written right now?
haha yes that's exactly the feeling i built this for
just sign up at planmoon.app and you'll get access right away — we also have linkedin and instagram planning alongside the blog stuff
would love your feedback on what's missing or confusing 🙏
The AI search visibility piece is the part I haven't seen other tools tackle seriously. We're at a weird inflection point where ranking in ChatGPT/Perplexity is becoming as important as Google for some niches, but nobody's built good tooling around it yet.
I ran my own site through it - building a browser card game, trying to figure out what content actually gets me discovered. The competitor mapping was pretty solid. One thing I'd push on: the content calendar output felt a bit generic for my use case. "Write about card game strategy" is true but not actionable. I'd love to see it get more specific - what angle, what question, what format.
Also tested it on a client's landscaping site and the local SEO gap was obvious immediately. Would be curious how you handle cases where the whole competitive landscape is local and most competitors don't have much content to analyze.
this is exactly the feedback i needed honestly
the "write about card game strategy" problem is real — i know it's too generic right now. the direction i'm going is getting it to suggest the specific angle, the question to answer, the format. not there yet but that's the priority
on the local SEO case — the competitor discovery actually runs on both google serp and AI web search and prioritizes competitors based on how they appear in both. so even for local niches it's not just looking at who has the most content, it's who's actually showing up across both surfaces. curious if that came through in your landscaping test or if it still felt limited?
really appreciate you running two very different sites through it, that's exactly the kind of testing i need right now
I run content strategy for about a dozen service business clients and the "what to write" problem is 100% real. Most of them come to us with either a random list of blog ideas their last agency gave them, or they just want to copy whatever their competitor posted last week. Neither approach works.
The AI search visibility angle is what caught my eye here. We've started tracking how often our clients show up in ChatGPT and Perplexity answers for their target queries, and it's a completely different game than traditional SEO. The content that ranks well in Google doesn't always get cited by AI tools. Shorter, more direct, definitional content seems to perform better in AI results than the long-form "ultimate guide" format that Google rewards.
One thing I'd push on: how does this handle local service businesses? Most content tools are built for SaaS or e-commerce. But a plumber in Denver or an estate planning attorney in Tampa has very different content needs. Their competitive landscape is hyperlocal, their content gaps are usually around specific service pages and location variations, not blog post topics. If you can crack that niche, there's way less competition than trying to be the next Ahrefs content explorer.
The beta request for 10 people to break it is smart. You'll learn more from 10 honest users than from 1,000 signups who never log in.
the observation about shorter definitional content performing better in AI results is spot on — we're seeing the same pattern and it's changing how i think about what planmoon should recommend
on local service businesses — honestly this is something i'm actively working through. you're right that most tools ignore this niche completely and it's a real gap. the hyperlocal competitive landscape and service page focus is a different problem than blog content strategy
would actually love to run a plumber or attorney site through it with you and see where it breaks — that kind of edge case testing with someone who knows the niche is way more valuable than generic feedback
are you open to trying it on one of your clients?
This is a cool direction. Tools like this live or die based on whether they actually change a decision someone makes day-to-day. One framing that might help sharpen it:
It sounds like the output is “here’s content you could create.” The harder, more valuable problem is “what should I not spend time on?” Most site owners already have more ideas than time. So the bar isn’t just generating ideas, it’s helping to confidently prioritize.
A few questions that might help stress-test it:
What decision does a user make differently after using this?
If they ignore your recommendation, what happens?
How does this fit into any existing workflows (docs, CMS, Notion, etc.)?
I’ve seen tools get traction when they plug directly into an existing workflow and reduce effort, not just add insight. Curious how you’re thinking about that. Is this more of a discovery tool or something that sits in the execution loop?"
-David
David these are really good questions honestly
the "what not to spend time on" framing is better than how i've been describing it — that's actually what the prioritization is supposed to do but i haven't been selling it that way
on the workflow question — right now it publishes directly to wordpress which puts it in the execution loop, not just discovery. notion and docs integration is something i'm thinking about
the question "if they ignore your recommendation what happens" — i don't have a good answer yet. that's a gap
what does your current content prioritization workflow look like? genuinely curious how you're solving this today
This is awesome! I'm also doing a Show IH
soon for FollowShop — automated follow-up
messages for Shopee & Lazada sellers in SEA 🇵🇭
Would love feedback too when I post!
nice, good luck with the launch! would love to see it when it's live 🙌
Nice concept solving the “what to write” problem is actually a big pain point. The content gap + prioritization angle sounds useful, especially if it goes beyond just keyword lists. I’d suggest focusing on how accurate and actionable the output is in real use. I’ll check it out and share feedback 👍
thanks, actionability is exactly what i'm focused on right now — keyword lists that don't translate into real decisions are what i was trying to avoid in the first place
looking forward to your feedback 🙏
The strongest part here is not the content calendar.
It’s that most site owners do not actually have a content problem.
They have a prioritization problem disguised as a content problem.
They do not need more keyword ideas.
They need to know what is worth publishing next, what is noise, and what can realistically move distribution.
That framing is much stronger than “content planner.”
And that is also where PlanMoon starts feeling too soft.
The product is not a planning toy.
It is closer to search intelligence / publishing intelligence.
If this becomes the system teams trust to decide what gets published next, the product likely wants a sharper frame than PlanMoon.
Beryxa.com would carry that much better.
the prioritization framing is really good honestly — you're right that it's not a content problem it's a "what's worth doing next" problem and i haven't been describing it that way
genuinely useful reframe, appreciate it
on the name — interesting thought, something to think about for sure
That’s the layer I’d build around.
“What’s worth doing next” is much sharper than “content planner” because it turns the product from a scheduling tool into a decision tool.
That also changes how the name gets judged.
PlanMoon can work while the product feels like planning.
It gets weaker if the product becomes the system people trust for publishing priorities.
That’s where Beryxa fits better.
It gives you room to own the decision layer instead of sounding like another content calendar.
My new project Emusic Tools, search it on Google if you want