The short answer

Keep personal contacts, guest records, private outreach history and nonpublic commercial assessments out of public hotel comparison pages. A useful public shortlist can show property names, official website links, a defined editorial scope and proposed audit questions. Public information and a private prospecting workspace serve different purposes.

Publish the minimum useful comparison context

Explain why the comparison set exists and what the list positions mean. A proposed audit topic can guide a review without revealing an internal account score or claiming that a hotel is an active client.

Do not publish a staff contact merely because it was found during sourcing. Guest messages and CRM notes are especially inappropriate as public supporting evidence.

Keep intake and access controls separate

A phone-only audit form collects information from the person requesting follow-up. It should not expose a contact directory or make a private CRM available to crawlers.

Use the privacy notice and project agreement to establish permitted data handling. Any private hotel records needed for delivery require their own approved sharing and access process.

What to check

  1. Exclude personal contacts and CRM history from public pages.
  2. Label editorial scope without implying a client relationship.
  3. Collect only the contact details needed for the requested follow-up.

A practical example

An illustrative public shortlist names five hotels and links their websites. Its internal outreach notes and staff contacts remain in a separate restricted workspace.

Sources and further reading

These steps are Arrow AI's implementation guidance. The example is illustrative; it is not a measured customer result. Publication and source access do not guarantee an AI recommendation.

Apply this to your website

Identify the source gaps and decide what to improve with Arrow's free audit. Review what Arrow GEO measures before choosing a reporting scope.