Searching "WordPress SEO Content Generator" this morning, the AI Overview named a plugin with fewer than 10 active installs and zero reviews in its opening sentence, alongside All in One SEO and SEOPress. It's also the first card in the source panel.

It's mine, so I went looking at why.

The description Google generated is almost verbatim from the readme's first paragraph. There are no reviews of it, no listicles, no roundups — nothing existed for it to summarize except the .org page itself. It read readme.txt and paraphrased it. It also pulled the Polish translation URL as a second source, so it's crawling locale subdomains.

The takeaway I'd offer to anyone maintaining a listing: readme.txt is now feeding a summarization layer, not just directory browsers. Plain declarative sentences about what the plugin does seem to get lifted cleanly. Marketing voice probably doesn't.

Context that matters: this changes nothing about .org directory search, which is still ranked on installs and ratings. I'm still buried there. But AI Overview citation apparently doesn't weight install count at all, which is a real opening for small plugins that didn't exist a year ago.

Has anyone tracked AI Overview citations for their own plugins? I'd like to know whether readme structure makes a measurable difference or whether I just hit a low-competition query.

Searching "WordPress SEO Content Generator" this morning, the AI Overview named a plugin with fewer than 10 active installs and zero reviews in its opening sentence, alongside All in One SEO and SEOPress. It's also the first card in the source panel.

It's mine, so I went looking at why.

The description Google generated is almost verbatim from the readme's first paragraph. There are no reviews of it, no listicles, no roundups — nothing existed for it to summarize except the .org page itself. It read readme.txt and paraphrased it. It also pulled the Polish translation URL as a second source, so it's crawling locale subdomains.

The takeaway I'd offer to anyone maintaining a listing: readme.txt is now feeding a summarization layer, not just directory browsers. Plain declarative sentences about what the plugin does seem to get lifted cleanly. Marketing voice probably doesn't.

Context that matters: this changes nothing about .org directory search, which is still ranked on installs and ratings. I'm still buried there. But AI Overview citation apparently doesn't weight install count at all, which is a real opening for small plugins that didn't exist a year ago.

Has anyone tracked AI Overview citations for their own plugins? I'd like to know whether readme structure makes a measurable difference or whether I just hit a low-competition query.