We're launching RCGE v2.2 soon. Help us not build something you'll hate.
We're enhancing Rankfender's Content Generation Engine (RCGE) and v2.2 is coming in the next few weeks. Before we lock things in, we want to know what actually matters to people who use content generation tools.
Here's what RCGE already does:
Intelligence. It analyzes the top 10 ranking articles for any keyword and identifies patterns. What structure do they use? What headers? What formatting? What makes them get cited by AI? Then it builds a brief based on what actually works, not guesswork.
Structure control. You can add, remove, and reorganize H2s before generation. No fixed templates. You decide the flow.
Inline images. Generated articles include images, not just text walls.
Regeneration. Mess up one paragraph? Regenerate just that part. Not the whole article.
What we're adding in v2.2:
A third layer: proofreading.
Not grammar checking. Something that flags content that adds nothing new. Content that just rephrases what's already out there. Content that doesn't include something unique to your brand — a data point, a screenshot, a real example.
We want to catch the stuff that feels like generic AI slop before you hit publish.
What we're trying to figure out:
What does your current content generator do that you hate?
What do you wish it did that it doesn't?
When you generate content, what makes you delete it vs hit publish?
We're not trying to build the perfect tool. Just trying to build something that doesn't make people want to throw their laptop out the window.
Drop your thoughts.
Imed Radhouani
Founder & CTO – Rankfender
Content that earns its place
Replies
If this can reliably catch "this says nothing new" before publish, that alone would remove a lot of editing pain.
Rankfender
@wyatt_cameron Yeah that's exactly what we're trying to solve. The "this says nothing new" problem is the worst because you read it and something feels off, but you can't quite put your finger on it. Then you realize it's just rephrasing what's already out there. No new data. No fresh take. No reason for anyone to read it.
The proofreader in v2.2 flags that stuff before you publish. Not just grammar. It checks if the content adds anything unique. If it doesn't, it asks you to add something real. A screenshot. A data point. A specific example from your own experience.
Btw what's the thing that makes you hit delete faster than anything else? For me it's when the content sounds like it was written by someone who's never actually used the product. You can tell immediately.
That proofreading layers sounds way more valuable than another "write faster" features, because most tools already generate enough fluff.
Rankfender
@reid_anderson4 Yeah exactly. Everyone already generates fluff. That part is solved. The problem now is sorting through the fluff to find something worth publishing.
The proofreader is our attempt at solving the right problem. Not "write faster" but "write less stuff that I have to delete." It's not glamorous. It doesn't make a good demo video. But it saves more time than any "write 10x faster" feature ever did.
what's the first thing you delete when you read AI-generated content? For me it's the generic intro paragraphs that just rephrase the title. "In today's digital landscape..." I'm out.
@imed_radhouaniI've been using RCGE for a few weeks now for our Italian and French content. Honestly, it's the only tool that gets the structure right without me having to fight it. The way it analyzes the top articles for a keyword and builds a brief based on what actually works? That's gold. I don't have to guess what Google or AI wants. It just gives me a solid outline.
What I'd love to see next: better handling of local nuances. We publish in Italian and French. Search behavior in Milan is different from Paris. If the engine could adapt the structure based on the region, that would take it to another level.
Also, the prooofreader catching generic AI slop is a huge win. I just wish it could also flag when the tone doesn't match our brand voice. Any plans for that??
But overall? Best content generator I've used. And I've tried a lot.
Rankfender
@joe_reda11 Really appreciate this — especially coming from someone who's actually using it across multiple languages.
On local nuances. You're spot on. Search behavior in Milan vs Paris is completely different. Right now RCGE works across languages but doesn't yet adapt structure by region within the same language. We're exploring how to layer in regional intent signals. Not there yet, but it's on the roadmap.
On tone + brand voice. Yes. The proofreader v2.0 will flag tone mismatches. We're building a Brand Voice profile where you can upload examples of your writing, and the engine will flag anything that doesn't match. It's in development now.
Glad the structure is working for you. That's the part we spent the most time on — because if the structure is wrong, nothing else matters.
Keep the feedback coming. This is exactly what helps us build the right thing.
@imed_radhouani Thanks for the detailed response. Good to know I'm not crazy about the regional thing. Makes sense that it's on the roadmap — seems like a hard problem to solve well.
The Brand Voice profile sounds like exactly what I need. Half my time editing right now is just making AI-generated content sound like us. If the engine could learn that upfront, huge time saver.
One more thing I forgot to mention: the way RCGE handles tables and structured data is way better than other tools. Most content generators just spit out walls of text. Yours actually formats things in a way that AI wants to extract. That alone makes a difference.
Keep building.
Rankfender
@joe_reda11 THANK YOU SO MUCH <3 !
the focus on catching content that adds nothing new is gold. Most tools can produce grammatically correct text, but originality is where thy fail.
Rankfender
@anil_yadav38 Yeah exactly. Grammar is solved. Structure is solved. The thing that's still broken is originality. Most tools generate text that's technically correct but says nothing worth reading.
The proofreader is our attempt at fixing that. It flags content that just rephrases what's already out there. No new data. No fresh angle. No reason for anyone to care. It's not perfect but it's better than watching your blog fill up with words nobody asked for.
What's the worst example you've seen of technically correct but totally empty content? I've got a folder of them for inspiration.