Every two weeks, a short briefing built from our own tracking of ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews. What changed, and what it means for brands that want to show up in AI answers.
Free, every two weeks. Unsubscribe any time.
Check your inbox and click the confirm link to start getting the report. No email within a minute? Check spam.
Issue three. Every two weeks I read what changed across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and the models behind them, then turn it into what it means for brands that want to show up when a customer asks an AI for a recommendation. Last issue was about the engines finally handing you numbers. This fortnight the research turned around and said one reading of those numbers cannot be trusted. Here is what moved.
AI visibility rankings move on their own. Research on quantifying uncertainty in AI visibility, covered by Search Engine Journal on July 11, measured how much citation results vary across repeated runs on Perplexity, SearchGPT, and Gemini. Citation distributions follow a power law and rankings are unstable across samples, so a single reading of your share of a model gives what the authors call a misleadingly precise picture. A separate team at the University of St. Gallen ran its own data and reached the same conclusion.
The paper offers a stopping rule for how many runs make a reading trustworthy, and notes the required number depends on each platform's citation pattern, so there is no universal run budget. The practical version: report AI visibility as a range across repeated runs with a trend, and say how many runs it is built on. A single score does not belong in a monthly deck.
The community arrived at the same place from the other direction. The top r/SEO thread this fortnight, at 126 upvotes and 117 comments, calls GEO visibility monitoring snake oil, with top replies describing the tools as horoscopes with an api key and a dashboard. Underneath the sarcasm sits a distinction Search Engine Journal spelled out in a measurement guide: visibility tools count citations, and a citation is not a recommendation. Your brand can sit in the source list of an answer that sends the reader to a competitor.
One concrete task with a deadline on it. Google renamed NotebookLM to Gemini Notebook and is changing its crawler user-agent from Google-NotebookLM to Google-GeminiNotebook. The old name keeps working until August 2026, after which any firewall, htaccess, or robots rule written against it stops applying, quietly, with no error to warn you. The user-triggered fetcher does not obey robots.txt at all, so blocking that one takes firewall or WAF rules.
Google put its first number on AI Search traffic. Nick Fox, the SVP of knowledge and information, says AI features in Search send billions of clicks to websites every week. There is no absolute total, no time series, and no share-of-Search breakdown behind it, so it works as reassurance for a nervous room and not as a benchmark you can plan against.
Two product changes worth knowing. Top Stories carousels are live inside Google AI Overviews in the US on mobile, which turns the answer box into a place where timely content can earn a link out. And GPT-5.6 became the preferred model inside Microsoft 365 Copilot on July 9, so the assistant answering buyer questions in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint changed underneath you.
OpenAI shipped the most this fortnight. On July 9 it released GPT-5.6 and made it the preferred model inside Microsoft 365 Copilot, covering Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Chat. The model ships as a family of three: Sol for flagship work, Terra for enterprise, Luna for high volume. For anyone tracking where buyers actually ask their questions, that is the part to hold on to. The assistant sitting inside the most widely used office suite now runs on a newer model, and citation behavior in Copilot can shift with it. OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, an agent that acts across a user's apps and files and can stay on a task for hours. And it set August 9 as the end date for the ChatGPT Atlas browser, folding browsing, tabs, downloads, and login support into the revamped ChatGPT desktop app. Atlas lasted less than a year. Agentic browsing is moving into the main app, so the surface to watch is ChatGPT itself.
Google's changes matter more for visibility. Top Stories carousels rolled out inside AI Overviews, live in the US on mobile, pulling timely reporting and a reader's preferred sources into the answer with links out. For news, launches, and anything time-sensitive, that turns the AI Overview into a place where a link can be earned rather than only a place where your page gets summarized. AI Overviews can now also generate images inside the response. And the Search Generative AI performance report in Search Console, the one covered in issue two, kept widening its rollout through the fortnight, so more brands will start seeing an impressions-only view of how their pages appear in AI Overviews and AI Mode.
The line your CEO will quote at you came from Nick Fox, who said in a LinkedIn post that Google sends billions of clicks to the web every day and, inside AI Search specifically, billions every week. Search Engine Journal's write-up is the one worth reading, because it names what is missing: no absolute totals, no time series, and no way to see what portion of Search clicks come from AI features. The claim is real and it is useful for calming a room that fears AI zeroes out referral traffic. It proves nothing about any single site, including yours.
Agentic commerce moved from announcement to practical guidance. Google's Universal Commerce Protocol lets an agent handle discovery, comparison, checkout, and post-purchase inside a conversational surface like Gemini, with a companion Agent Payments Protocol handling the money. Search Engine Land published a piece on what that means for product data, Merchant Center, and structured markup. If you sell products, the direction is that your feed becomes the thing an agent shops from, and getting that data clean is the same work that helps AI citation today.
Two smaller moves point the same way. Perplexity shipped Skills in its Agent API, where developers pass a skills array per request and the model loads a skill's full instructions only when it decides to use one. Perplexity attaches citations to a higher share of its answers than the other assistants, so anything that changes how it assembles a response is worth watching. And Cloudflare introduced Precursor, a bot-detection engine that scores how humans and bots move through a session rather than reading the user-agent string. If you manage crawl access at the edge, note that detection is shifting to behavior, which makes letting the good bots in by name harder to control.
The most useful item this fortnight is a warning about measurement. The uncertainty research covered by Search Engine Journal on July 11 measured how much citation results vary across repeated runs on Perplexity, SearchGPT, and Gemini. Two results carry. Citation distributions follow a power law, so a small number of domains take most of the citations and the tail underneath is thin and jumpy. And rankings are unstable across samples, so ask the same question twice and the order of who gets cited can change. The authors' phrase for a single-run visibility metric is misleadingly precise. They offer a stopping rule for how many runs make a reading trustworthy, with the caveat that the required number depends on each platform's citation pattern, so there is no universal run budget. A separate team at the University of St. Gallen ran its own dataset and agreed. If you are buying or building AI visibility monitoring, this is now the question to put to a vendor: how many runs is this number built on, and what is the spread?
Search Engine Journal's guide to measuring AI search visibility drew the line underneath all of it. Visibility tools count citations. A citation is not a recommendation. Your domain can appear in the source list of an answer whose text steers the reader somewhere else entirely, and the tool will score that as a win. Reading the answers, and not only the counts, is the part no dashboard does for you.
The actionable crawl item is the NotebookLM rename. Google is moving 30 million NotebookLM users to Gemini Notebook and, in the process, changing the crawler and fetcher user-agent from Google-NotebookLM to Google-GeminiNotebook. The old agent keeps working until August 2026. Any firewall rule, htaccess rule, or robots directive written against the old name stops applying after that, silently. Search Engine Journal also reports that the user-triggered fetcher does not obey robots.txt at all, so if you want that one blocked, the rule has to live in your firewall or WAF.
John Mueller flagged a related trap in the same week. An “are you a bot” interstitial can get a site's pages dropped from Google, and can even hand canonical status to a different site. Aggressive bot challenges catch Google's own crawler, and the cost shows up in indexing long before anyone thinks to look at the challenge page.
On llms.txt, nothing changed, and that is the news. Google's position from its June 2026 guidance still stands: Search and its generative features ignore the file, so it neither helps nor hurts ranking. Google's softer line is that it is fine to keep one for other systems that consume it, and some ChatGPT and Perplexity surfaces do. The only movement is tooling coverage. Chrome Lighthouse checks for the file, and community reports this fortnight say PageSpeed Insights now flags it too, which will push more site owners to add one to satisfy a score. Keep it cheap, keep expectations low, and spend the real effort on clean HTML and structured data.
One item for anyone building agent-readable pages. The WebMCP tools a site exposes to agents can be turned against them through prompt injection, because WebMCP hands an agent named tools to call and a clean route in. WebMCP is the protocol Google is backing for agent-to-page interaction, so the surface that lets agents operate your site is also an attack path. Exposing tools to agents is a security decision as much as a visibility one.
The mood turned skeptical. The top r/SEO thread this fortnight, titled “GEO techniques and visibility monitoring is pretty much all snake oil,” pulled 126 upvotes and 117 comments, with top replies calling the tools horoscopes with an api key and a dashboard. It reads like venting. It matches what the research says in careful language: a single-run visibility score carries more precision than the data underneath it supports.
A quieter r/bigseo thread made the sharper point. There is no Search Console equivalent for LLMs, because the prompt never reaches your server. When a buyer asks ChatGPT a question and your page gets recommended, the question happened somewhere you have no access to. That is the shape of the channel rather than a gap waiting for a future release to patch.
Several accounts spent the fortnight circulating citation-share statistics, and they are worth flagging so you can recognize them. One widely shared post claims that across 149,000 citations in ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and Grok, only 2.9 percent of AI brand mentions come from a brand's own site, with Reddit at roughly 40 percent. Another claims Perplexity cites sources in 97 percent of responses against ChatGPT at 16 percent. No primary study backs these exact figures. They trace to single social posts, so please keep them out of your slides. The direction they point, that owned sites are a small slice of citations and that different engines cite very different sources, matches what we see across client scans. The size of the numbers does not survive checking. If a percentage like this is about to move a budget, measure it for your own category first.
Among the people worth following: Barry Schwartz confirmed Top Stories are live in US AI Overviews on mobile and that AI Overviews can now generate images, Aleyda Solis published her weekly AI Search and AI Overviews roundup, Glenn Gabe surfaced Google preparing Gemini Live and Skills for desktop and web, and Aravind Srinivas promoted the Perplexity Agent API Skills release.
Change how you report the number. If you track AI visibility, report it as a range across repeated runs with a trend line, and say out loud how many runs it is built on. A single score in a monthly deck will move on its own and you will spend the meeting explaining noise instead of explaining the business. When a vendor shows you a share-of-model figure, ask for the sample size and the spread. Most cannot answer that yet.
Read the answers, not only the count. Pull a handful of the actual responses your brand appears in and check whether the text recommends you or names you on the way to recommending somebody else. That gap is where the work is, and no tool on the market reports it for you.
Put the crawler rename on the calendar. Search your firewall rules, htaccess, and robots.txt for Google-NotebookLM and add Google-GeminiNotebook before August 2026. While you are in there, check that any bot-challenge interstitial is not firing at Googlebot. Both are small jobs with a real cost if you miss them.
Have an answer ready on billions of clicks. Someone senior will quote that line at you. The honest framing is that Google gave a direction without a denominator, so it says nothing about your site's referral traffic either way. Pair it with your own numbers. GA4's AI Assistant channel is the fastest read, keeping in mind that it recognizes ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, leaves Perplexity and Copilot sitting in Referral, does not backfill, and misses the large share of AI referrals that arrive with no referrer and land in Direct.
If you sell products, start the feed work early. Universal Commerce Protocol and the Agent Payments Protocol point at agents doing the buying, and what they buy from is your structured product data. Nothing is urgent yet. The preparation is the same preparation that helps citations today, so it is not a wasted bet.
And a word on the skepticism, because it is going to reach your team. When the loudest room in SEO calls this category snake oil, the response that holds up is measurement you can defend: repeated runs, honest ranges, the citation-versus-recommendation gap named out loud, and your own first-party data underneath it. The people selling one-shot scores just got a harder job. Anyone measuring carefully just got an easier conversation.
Get the next issue in your inbox, every two weeks.
Get the report →The references behind this issue.
Every issue keeps a permanent home here.
About the report, and how it relates to the paid audit.
Yes. It is a free newsletter, sent every two weeks. There is no payment and no trial, and it is separate from our paid AI Search Visibility audit.
Once every two weeks. Each issue is a short briefing on what changed across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews, and what it means for brands that want to be named in AI answers.
The report is general intelligence on the AI search landscape, free to everyone. The paid AI Search Visibility audit measures your specific brand across the AI surfaces and gives you a prioritised fix list. The report is a newsletter; the audit is a service.
Yes. Every email has a one-click unsubscribe link. We confirm your address once up front with a double opt-in, and we never share it.