How to get recommended by Claude: a practical guide
Review Claude web search, ClaudeBot, Claude-User and Claude-SearchBot, then improve product facts and compare saved answers under recorded conditions.
To improve the information Claude can find about your business, publish specific product facts and check access for the relevant Anthropic bots. Then review saved Claude answers against those facts. Start with a customer decision: what the buyer needs, which conditions matter, and what evidence supports your product's fit.
Understand the answer you are checking
Anthropic's web search documentation explains that Claude can retrieve current web information and provide source citations. It also describes direct page retrieval when a user supplies a URL. Treat a search question and a request to read your page as separate tests.
For a discovery check, ask the buying question without including your brand name or website. For a page-reading check, provide the page and ask Claude to explain a specific capability. Save the prompt and answer for each. This procedure keeps the task you requested visible beside the result.
Record the interface and model label you can actually see. Anthropic's guidance notes that search controls differ between experiences. Ask Claude to search the web when that is the test, then record whether the response showed search activity and sources. Keep the original answer available for inspection.
Know the three Anthropic crawler identities
Anthropic's site-owner documentation distinguishes three bots:
- ClaudeBot collects web material that could contribute to model training.
- Claude-SearchBot accesses content to improve search results and their relevance.
- Claude-User retrieves pages in response to user activity.
Anthropic says its bots honor robots.txt and supports the non-standard Crawl-delay directive. Its documentation also links a published network list for checking whether a request comes from Anthropic. Use the current documentation when reviewing access, rather than assuming all three identities have the same purpose.
Create an access worksheet for each important host. Put the intended policy, relevant bot, page URL, observed response, and check date on one row. Separate the policy choice from the technical observation so another reviewer can understand what was intended and what happened.
Check the complete route to the page
Anthropic asks site owners to apply their robots.txt preferences on each subdomain they want to control. It warns that blocking its IP addresses can also obstruct its ability to read the file. Review the published policy alongside the hosting configuration before deciding how to change access.
For each selected page, inspect redirects, authentication screens, firewall challenges, and the body returned to the request. Save the exact URL and outcome. Ask the person responsible for hosting to investigate the layer that produced the problem, then repeat the same check after a repair.
Keep private account pages and administrative routes outside this publishing exercise. The practical objective is to serve the public documentation you selected under your chosen policy. A narrow review of those pages is easier to verify than an undocumented change across the whole domain.
Write a product explanation that supports a decision
Choose one question for each page. A fictional stock-management product might need to explain whether it supports several warehouses, how imports work, and which records can be exported. Put the answer near the top, then show the workflow and the conditions that affect it.
Use a real example from your own product when preparing the final page. Specify the input, the action, and the resulting record or screen. Check the example against the current interface. Link the setup instructions that a reader would need to reproduce it.
- Use one consistent product name and category across your site.
- Explain the audience and the job the product handles.
- State unsupported cases where they change the buying decision.
- Apply the same criteria when comparing competing products.
- Give original measurements a date, method, and defined sample.
These are editorial recommendations, not a published Claude ranking formula. Start with a factual contradiction or missing explanation found during your review. Avoid creating several near-identical pages just to repeat different versions of the same buying question.
Inspect the answer and its linked evidence
Read the saved answer sentence by sentence. Separate an accurate description, an inaccurate claim, a recommendation, and a source link in your notes. Open the linked pages and find the passages that support the claims relevant to the buyer's decision.
If the wrong fact comes from your own page, correct that page first. If it appears on a third-party directory, prepare a concise correction with a current public source. Keep the request and any resulting change in your review record without treating the publisher's response as guaranteed.
For a hypothetical stock tool, an answer might say that automatic exports are included while the documentation describes manual exports only. Verify which statement is true, fix the incorrect source, and record the wording changed. That gives the next review a concrete fact to inspect.
Repeat the same questions under recorded conditions
Keep a manageable set of category, comparison, and implementation questions. Record the date, exact wording, visible model, language, location, search activity, full response, and links. Anthropic notes that location may affect localized results, so retain that context when it matters to the question.
Choose a regular review interval and keep edits in a dated log. Preserve answers where the brand was absent, as well as failed or incomplete checks. Compare descriptions and source pages, then decide which unresolved fact deserves attention next. Use website analytics and server records separately when reviewing visits or access.
Keep the conclusion within the evidence
Access and clear publishing do not guarantee a Claude recommendation. A request, a returned source link, a mention, and a visit are separate observations. Before-and-after samples cannot prove an edit caused the difference. SearchSeal's explicit citation status is currently unknown.
Alongside manual Claude checks, SearchSeal currently monitors only DeepSeek. It saves answers to tracked questions with brand mentions, position, rivals, and returned source links. Optional, read-only Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster connections add demand per page to help rank the owner's page fixes against that answer evidence.