Latest posts
-
BrightonSEO next week will be full of AI claims nobody can mark wrong
BrightonSEO is on 8 and 9 October. Here are the AI sessions I’ll be watching, and what would make each one checkable.
-
Study plan: established newsbrands and lower-credibility sites
A registered method for comparing AI crawler block rates between established UK newsbrands and high-reach sites that fail a set credibility test.
-
Study plan: link, mention or nothing
A registered method for counting how often AI answers to UK news questions link to a news source.
-
Study plan: the Telegraph and the Daily Mail in AI answers
A registered comparison of two papers with almost identical robots.txt files and one difference.
-
Study plan: do news sites that block AI training still appear in AI answers?
A registered method and a fixed list of 30 UK news queries for checking which newsbrands appear in AI answers.
-
Study plan: do news sites enforce their robots.txt?
A registered method for checking whether the servers of ten UK news sites act on what their robots.txt files say.
-
Notes on one file: the Sun
The Sun’s robots.txt blocks by default and lets in a short list of named crawlers.
-
What I will not claim
Four claims this site won’t make, and why the data can’t support them.
-
How to write a claim you can mark wrong
The four things a claim needs before it can be checked.
-
robots.txt is a request
What a robots.txt file can and can’t tell you about AI crawlers.