References section missing or thin

The References section only ever contains real sources that the research step found and verified. The plugin never pads it. If research found two good sources, you get two references, not ten.

Why this happens

Before writing, SEOBetter collects live article URLs about your keyword and checks each one. Dead links, bot walls, and "access denied" pages get dropped. What survives is the citation pool, and the AI can only cite from it. The References list is built from that pool at save time, so every entry was a real, working link when your article was generated. The how research works article covers this in detail.

Very niche keywords are the usual cause of a thin list. "Ergonomic chairs" has hundreds of quality sources; "ergonomic chairs for left-handed drummers" might have three, and two of them might block crawlers. A thin pool in, a thin References section out.

What to do

1. Broaden the keyword slightly and regenerate. One step up in breadth is usually enough. "Best budget ergonomic chairs" instead of the left-handed-drummers version. You keep the niche angle in the article body; you just give research something to work with. Note that regenerating uses another article from your allowance.
2. Regenerate at the same keyword. Research runs fresh each time, so a second run can catch sources the first one missed. This helps less than broadening, but it costs nothing extra beyond the article slot.
3. Add your own sources by hand. If you know the authoritative pages for your niche, add them to the References list in the editor and cite them in the text. Hand-picked sources are often better than anything a search can find.

What not to do

Do not ask an AI chatbot to "fill in" the References section. Invented citations are the fastest way to lose reader trust, and AI answer engines check links. A short list of real sources scores better than a long list of fakes, which is why SEOBetter refuses to fabricate them in the first place.