Welcome to Pulse: this week’s updates touch how you measure AI visibility, what to expect from llms.txt, and where the agentic web heads next.
Microsoft shipped new AI citation tools, fresh data landed on llms.txt, Google and two coalitions published agent specs, and the UK set new ranking rules for Google Search.
Here’s what matters for you and your work.
Bing Rolls Out AI Citation Share In Webmaster Tools
Microsoft is rolling four new features into the Bing Webmaster Tools AI Performance dashboard. Citation Share, Intents, Topics, and Compare are all in preview for now.
Key facts: Citation Share reports the percentage of AI citations your site captures for a given grounding query, while Intents and Topics group those queries to ease a data limit in the current dashboard. Compare lets you lay a past period over the present one. All four are beginning to roll out globally, still in preview.
Why This Matters
Citation Share is the first metric in Bing Webmaster Tools to show your AI visibility against competitors’, not just whether you were cited. The catch is that it’s Bing data only, covering Copilot and Bing’s own answers, so it says nothing about Google, where Search Console still offers no citation-style counts.
What SEO Professionals Are Saying
Gianluca Fiorelli, Founder of ILoveSEO.net, wrote on LinkedIn:
“Bing Webmaster! The Google Search Console we would like to have.”
Read our full coverage: Bing Rolls Out AI Citation Share In Webmaster Tools
Google And Ahrefs Data Narrow The Case For llms.txt
llms.txt took two hits this week. Google’s John Mueller said the file can’t help an LLM tell one site from another, and new Ahrefs data showed the bots that matter barely fetch it.
Key facts: Speaking on Search Off the Record, Mueller argued that llms.txt can’t differentiate sites for discovery, because the file is self-reported by the very site hoping to be chosen, and he pointed back to ordinary HTML and internal links instead. The Ahrefs data lands in the same place. Across 137,000 domains, 97% of llms.txt files drew zero requests, and the retrieval bots that generate citations, like ChatGPT and Perplexity, made up just 1% of the fetches that did happen.
Why This Matters
Both findings point the same way. A self-reported file can’t make an LLM choose you, and the bots that generate citations barely fetch it, so don’t expect llms.txt to move your AI search visibility. It still earns a narrow place with the coding agents and training crawlers that read it, which keeps it cheap to maintain, the same conclusion SE Ranking’s look at 300,000 domains reached months ago.
What SEO Professionals Are Saying
Nat Miletic, Founder at Clio Websites, summed up the takeaway on LinkedIn:
“llms.txt is low cost to publish, fine to have. Just don’t expect it to move AI visibility right now.”
Read our full coverage: Google’s Mueller Says llms.txt Can’t Help LLMs Differentiate Sites and 97% Of llms.txt Files Got No Requests,…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
