AI Visibility Benchmark · Core Finding
Check access and useful evidence separately.
A successful page response and useful source material answer different questions. The June study recorded both access fields and our source-feature scores; it did not measure citation outcomes.
Benchmark record
- Edition
- 2026.06
- Sample
- 50 service-business websites
- Finding
- Crawlable is not the same as citable
Benchmark corpus
- Overview
- Dataset
- Methodology
- DUCR Score
- Crawler Access Study
- Crawlable, Not Citable
- Citation-Worthy Pages
- Answer-Source Format
- Monthly Tracking
- Limitations
The 50 June records contain HTTP 200 responses for the primary service pages and allowed flags for the five named search crawlers. The median Citable score was 4/30 under our rubric. The methodology explains selection and the two unsuccessful robots-file responses; the score guide explains what the points can tell you.
Crawlable Is Not The Same As Citable
| Review layer | What the rubric considers | 2026.06 median |
|---|---|---|
| Discoverable | Recorded access, index/snippet directives and internal connections. | 19.0/25 |
| Understandable | The page clearly communicates entity, service, audience, and page role. | 15.0/25 |
| Citable | The page provides reusable source evidence, methodology, limitations, tables, downloads, and attribution. | 4.0/30 |
| Routable | The page connects evidence to the next useful service, proof, or contact path. | 13.0/20 |
The two kinds of observation are worth inspecting separately. This study did not test which features caused citation selection.
What The Reviewed Sample Found
| Signal | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| HTTP 200 on primary service page | 50/50 | 100% |
| OAI-SearchBot allowed | 50/50 | 100% |
| Claude-SearchBot allowed | 50/50 | 100% |
| PerplexityBot allowed | 50/50 | 100% |
| Noindex present | 0/50 | 0% |
| Nosnippet present | 0/50 | 0% |
| Methodology present | 10/50 | 20% |
| Limitations present | 6/50 | 12% |
| Dataset/download present | 5/50 | 10% |
| Original data present | 0/50 | 0% |
| Table present | 3/50 | 6% |
The feature counts describe this selected sample. A missing format is not automatically a buyer problem or a platform requirement.
Why Generic Service Pages Struggle
When reviewing a service page, look for information a suitable buyer needs. Possible gaps include:
- they describe benefits without evidence;
- they use broad claims without official or first-party source support;
- they hide important details behind vague FAQs;
- they leave the delivery process or service boundaries unclear;
- they omit an example or comparison needed to assess the work;
- they route every reader to a generic CTA instead of linking proof to next steps.
These are questions for a page review, not measured failures of the sampled businesses. Use relevant customer questions and current page evidence to decide which gap deserves work.
What To Build Instead
Choose an addition only when it resolves a real information need. These are editorial options:
| Upgrade | Why It Helps |
|---|---|
| Add a direct definition block | Explains the service directly. |
| Add a process or methodology block | Shows how claims and recommendations are produced. |
| Add a limitations block | Prevents overclaiming and improves credibility. |
| Add a table | Can make a genuine comparison easier to read. |
| Add proof examples | Grounds claims in observable evidence. |
| Add official references where relevant | Supports claims that depend on platform behavior. |
| Add internal routes | Connects source content to service, proof, contact, and tracking pages. |
Correct Commercial Move
Choose a priority service page and the buyer question it leaves unresolved. Use the service-page brief to record the work, evidence and next step. Do not commission a research hub or rebuild simply to raise a DUCR score.
If the question is where to begin, request the free Outside View or discuss your priority on a Clarity Call.
Related Pages
The Outside View
See where you stand with Google, AI and your buyers.
Send us your website. In two business days you have it in writing: how you look from the outside, who really competes with you, and the ten fixes that matter. Free.