Gravatar Offers Free Domains To Use As Bluesky Handles via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Gravatar announced a free domain name offer and Bluesky integration that makes it relatively easy to use a custom domain name as a Bluesky handle. A custom handle provides a more professional Bluesky presence compared to the standard generic versions like username.bsky.social. Integrating a domain name through Gravatar involves several steps on both platforms but is relatively easy compared to processes at a domain registrar.

Using a custom domain name through a domain name registrar requires a TXT record verification and adding a DNS record to the domain at the registrar. Claiming a domain name through Gravatar doesn’t require those extra steps, which significantly simplifies the process of using a custom domain at Bluesky.

Gravatar Domain Name Offer

The offer from Gravatar makes it simple to grab a domain name free for the first year directly from the Gravatar profile, which requires registering a free Gravatar profile (if one isn’t already registered). The option for selecting a domain name will be in the Gravatar dashboard.

Gravatar currently offers the following domains free for the first year with renewals at the standard rate the following year.

Free for the first year, renews at the following rates:

  • .link $9.00/year
  • .life $31.00/year
  • .live $28.00/year
  • .social $32.00/year
  • .bio $62.00/year
  • .fyi $18.00/year
  • .pro $21.00/year
  • .guru $35.00/year
  • .world $35.00/year
  • .ninja $19.00/year

Gravatar lists steps for completing the process:

1. Get Your Free Gravatar Domain

2. Verify Your Bluesky

3. Change Your Bluesky Handle

4. Reconnect Bluesky in Gravatar

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Koshiro K

Google Announces New ‘Dating & Companionship’ Ads Policy via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google announced it will launch a new Dating and Companionship Ads policy and certification program on March 4.

This update aims to improve oversight of dating ads on Google’s advertising platforms.

New Policy Highlights

Advertisers must get certification from Google to run dating or companionship ads under the new policy.

The policy bans certain ads, including those that:

  • Promote underage dating
  • Use misleading images or text
  • Promote paid companionship or sexual acts
  • Support exploitative or deceptive practices
  • Advertise mail-order spouses

Some ads for hook-up, fling, swinger sites, affair services, sexual fetish dating, and apps with nudity or suggestive content will face additional restrictions.

Ad serving restrictions will depend on the ad type, user age, local laws, SafeSearch settings, and past searches for sexual content.

Transition Period

Google’s new Dating and Companionship Ads policy will take effect on March 4.

Advertisers should review their ads now to ensure compliance, either obtaining certification or removing non-compliant ads. Enforcement will gradually increase after the launch.

While this is a standalone policy, it incorporates relevant rules from Google’s existing policies on Inappropriate Content and sexual content, which will also be updated at the same time.

Implications For Advertisers

Brands in the dating and companionship industry must review their ads and landing pages to comply with Google’s new policy rules.

Certification will be mandatory to continue advertising in this area.

This policy aims to create a safer advertising environment by reducing misleading and inappropriate ads, helping to build trust among users of dating services.

As the March implementation date approaches, Google will share more details about the certification process and policy updates.


Featured Image: MicroOne/Shutterstock

Google On Robots.txt: When To Use Noindex vs. Disallow via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

In a recent YouTube video, Google’s Martin Splitt explained the differences between the “noindex” tag in robots meta tags and the “disallow” command in robots.txt files.

Splitt, a Developer Advocate at Google, pointed out that both methods help manage how search engine crawlers work with a website.

However, they have different purposes and shouldn’t be used in place of each other.

When To Use Noindex

The “noindex” directive tells search engines not to include a specific page in their search results. You can add this instruction in the HTML head section using the robots meta tag or the X-Robots HTTP header.

Use “noindex” when you want to keep a page from showing up in search results but still allow search engines to read the page’s content. This is helpful for pages that users can see but that you don’t want search engines to display, like thank-you pages or internal search result pages.

When To Use Disallow

The “disallow” directive in a website’s robots.txt file stops search engine crawlers from accessing specific URLs or patterns. When a page is disallowed, search engines will not crawl or index its content.

Splitt advises using “disallow” when you want to block search engines completely from retrieving or processing a page. This is suitable for sensitive information, like private user data, or for pages that aren’t relevant to search engines.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

One common mistake website owners make is using “noindex” and “disallow” for the same page. Splitt advises against this because it can cause problems.

If a page is disallowed in the robots.txt file, search engines cannot see the “noindex” command in the page’s meta tag or X-Robots header. As a result, the page might still get indexed, but with limited information.

To stop a page from appearing in search results, Splitt recommends using the “noindex” command without disallowing the page in the robots.txt file.

Google provides a robots.txt report in Google Search Console to test and monitor how robots.txt files affect search engine indexing.

Why This Matters

Understanding the proper use of “noindex” and “disallow” directives is essential for SEO professionals.

Following Google’s advice and using the available testing tools will help ensure your content appears in search results as intended.

See the full video below:


Featured Image: Asier Romero/Shutterstock

Accessibility Champ: Wix, WordPress, Squarespace, Duda, Or…? via @sejournal, @martinibuster

The HTTP Archive published its report on the state of accessibility on the web, based on scores generated with the Lighthouse Accessibility Audit, a feature of Google’s Lighthouse website auditing tool that also measures website performance, best practices, and SEO. The report compared traditional content management systems with website building platforms, with WordPress scoring surprisingly well.

Lighthouse is a feature available through Chrome DevTools built into every Chrome-based browser and as one of the audits on the standalone PageSpeed Insights tool.

HTTP Archive

The research was conducted by the HTTP Archive, a community driven open source project that tracks data about how how sites are built and perform. They offer a configurable report of how different content management platforms perform that is updated monthly.

The accessibility report was done using data collected by the The WebAim Million study which is based on the top one million website home pages. WebAim Million uses data from the Tranco list which itself is based on six different sources to come up with the list of million sites, a list that is designed to be resistant to manipulation.

The Tranco List site explains:

“Researchers in web security or Internet measurements often use rankings of popular websites. However, in our paper we showed that these rankings disagree on which domains are most popular, can change significantly on a daily basis and can be manipulated (by malicious actors).

As the research community still benefits from regularly updated lists of popular domains, we provide Tranco, a ranking that improves upon the shortcomings of current lists. We also emphasize the reproducibility of these rankings and the studies using them by providing permanent citable references.

We currently use the lists from five providers: Cisco Umbrella (available free of charge), and Majestic (available under a CC BY 3.0 license), Farsight (only for the default list), the Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX) (available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license), and Cloudflare Radar (available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license). Tranco is not affiliated with any of these providers.”

Top CMS Accessibility Performance

HTTP Archive performed it’s research to identify the best performing platforms and shortcomings of each.

Accessibility: Traditional CMS

Adobe Experience Manager and Contentful were the top traditional content management systems when it came to accessibility, tied with a score of 87%, followed by Sitecore and WordPress in second place. An interesting fact about the top ranked CMSs is that, except for WordPress, three of the four top ranked CMSs were closed source, Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Contentful and Sitecore .

Accessibility Scores By CMS:

  • Adobe Experience Manager 87%
  • Contentful 87%
  • Sitecore 85%
  • WordPress 85%
  • Craft CMS 84%
  • Contao 84%
  • Drupal 84%
  • Liferay 83%
  • TYPO3 CMS 83%
  • DNN 82%

What’s going on with the CMS scores? HTTP Archive explains:

“When most folks think about CMS, they think about the ones that you can download and install yourself. This is predominantly made up of open source tools, but not exclusively. Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Contentful and Sitecore were the most accessible three in this list of top 10. A possible explanation for this is that closed-source software like AEM is more likely to be used by larger corporations, which have more resources to address accessibility issues. Additionally, open-source software gives website owners a lot of freedom, which in some cases can lead to worse accessibility.”

Accessibility: Website Platforms

This comparison is by website building platform, comparing platforms like Wix, Duda, and Squarespace. The accessibility scores for the platforms were higher than the scores for traditional CMSs, reflecting how private platforms are better able to control variables as opposed to an open source CMS that offers users a more open ended experience.

Accessibility Scores By Website Platform

  • Wix 94%
  • Squarespace 92%
  • Google Sites 90%
  • Duda 87%
  • Hubspot CMS Hub 87%
  • Pixnet 87%
  • Weebly 86%
  • GoDaddy Website Builder 85%
  • Webnode 84%
  • Tilda 83%

Wix Beats Out All CMS & Platforms

What’s notable about these scores is that sites built with Wix score higher for accessibility than all other sites built on any other CMS or website building platform. Ninety four percent of sites built with Wix have a That’s a reflection of Wix’s well-known effort to create a product that is strong in performance, SEO and accessibility.

Here is the list arranged in descending order by percentage:

1. Wix – 94%
2. Squarespace – 92%
3. Google Sites – 90%
4. Adobe Experience Manager – 87%
5. Contentful – 87%
6. Duda – 87%
7. Hubspot CMS Hub – 87%
8. Pixnet – 87%
9. Sitecore – 85%
10. WordPress – 85%
11. GoDaddy Website Builder – 85%
12. Weebly – 86%
13. Craft CMS – 84%
14. Contao – 84%
15. Drupal – 84%
16. Webnode – 84%
17. Liferay – 83%
18. TYPO3 CMS – 83%
19. Tilda – 83%
20. DNN – 82%

Website Accessibility

SEOs are understandably motivated by best practices for ranking better. For example, many didn’t prioritize site performance until it became a ranking factor, even though website performance improves sales and advertising performance and may have indirect impact on rankings.

Accessibility also has indirect advantages for improved search performance. For example, about .5% of the female population and 8% of males are color blind. Why would anyone who cares about their rankings alienate, frustrate and exclude approximately 4.5% of website visitors?

Wix and Squarespace are prioritizing accessibility. Everyone else should as well, because it’s both ethical and a sound business practice.

Read the HTTP Archive report here.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Happy_Nati

Google: Host Resources On Different Hostname To Save Crawl Budget via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google Search Central has launched a new series called “Crawling December” to provide insights into how Googlebot crawls and indexes webpages.

Google will publish a new article each week this month exploring various aspects of the crawling process that are not often discussed but can significantly impact website crawling.

The first post in the series covers the basics of crawling and sheds light on essential yet lesser-known details about how Googlebot handles page resources and manages crawl budgets.

Crawling Basics

Today’s websites are complex due to advanced JavaScript and CSS, making them harder to crawl than old HTML-only pages. Googlebot works like a web browser but on a different schedule.

When Googlebot visits a webpage, it first downloads the HTML from the main URL, which may link to JavaScript, CSS, images, and videos. Then, Google’s Web Rendering Service (WRS) uses Googlebot to download these resources to create the final page view.

Here are the steps in order:

  1. Initial HTML download
  2. Processing by the Web Rendering Service
  3. Resource fetching
  4. Final page construction

Crawl Budget Management

Crawling extra resources can reduce the main website’s crawl budget. To help with this, Google says that “WRS tries to cache every resource (JavaScript and CSS) used in the pages it renders.”

It’s important to note that the WRS cache lasts up to 30 days and is not influenced by the HTTP caching rules set by developers.

This caching strategy helps to save a site’s crawl budget.

Recommendations

This post gives site owners tips on how to optimize their crawl budget:

  1. Reduce Resource Use: Use fewer resources to create a good user experience. This helps save crawl budget when rendering a page.
  2. Host Resources Separately: Place resources on a different hostname, like a CDN or subdomain. This can help shift the crawl budget burden away from your main site.
  3. Use Cache-Busting Parameters Wisely: Be careful with cache-busting parameters. Changing resource URLs can make Google recheck them, even if the content is the same. This can waste your crawl budget.

Also, Google warns that blocking resource crawling with robots.txt can be risky.

If Google can’t access a necessary resource for rendering, it may have trouble getting the page content and ranking it properly.

Monitoring Tools

The Search Central team says the best way to see what resources Googlebot is crawling is by checking a site’s raw access logs.

You can identify Googlebot by its IP address using the ranges published in Google’s developer documentation.

Why This Matters

This post clarifies three key points that impact how Google finds and processes your site’s content:

  • Resource management directly affects your crawl budget, so hosting scripts and styles on CDNs can help preserve it.
  • Google caches resources for 30 days regardless of your HTTP cache settings, which helps conserve your crawl budget.
  • Blocking critical resources in robots.txt can backfire by preventing Google from properly rendering your pages.

Understanding these mechanics helps SEOs and developers make better decisions about resource hosting and accessibility – choices that directly impact how well Google can crawl and index their sites.


Featured Image: ArtemisDiana/Shutterstock

Bluesky Emerges As Traffic Source: Publishers Report 3x Engagement via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Bluesky, a decentralized social network, recently shared that it’s become a growing traffic source for online publishers.

The blog post included quotes and data from several well-known news outlets, showing more engagement and conversions on Bluesky than on other social media platforms.

Publisher Testimonials Highlight Bluesky’s Impact

Matt Karolian from The Boston Globe reported, “Traffic from Bluesky to @bostonglobe.com is already 3x that of Threads, and we are seeing 4.5x the conversions to paying digital subscribers.”

Dave Earley from The Guardian also chimed in, suggesting that traffic from Bluesky to The Guardian is “significantly higher than the very obvious 2x that of Threads.”

According to Kevin Rothrock from The New York Times, “It’s hard to exaggerate how nuts the engagement is on Bluesky compared to 𝕏. A vastly smaller user base (at this point) but so much more active and attentive.”

Marc Elias from Democracy Docket noted, “Traffic from Bluesky to @democracydocket.com is surging while X is falling and Threads remains largely dormant.”

Open Source Web Development Community Thriving on Bluesky

Bluesky has a highly engaged user base that benefits more than just news publishers.

Patak, an open-source web developer, noted that even though they have only 6% of the followers on Bluesky compared to 100,000 on X (formerly Twitter), their announcement post for Vite 6.0 received half the reposts and a third of the likes.

“Most of the comments and quotes from OSS maintainers happened here,” Patak noted. “I don’t know about other communities, but OSS web dev is a Bluesky game now.”

SEO Community Finding a Home on Bluesky

Many SEO professionals, publishers, and developers are now using Bluesky. They like the platform’s features and high engagement, which support discussions and knowledge sharing.

Bluesky is more accommodating towards links compared to X. A company representative stated:

“We want Bluesky to be a great home for journalists, publishers, and creators. Unlike other platforms, we don’t de-promote your links. Post all the links you want — Bluesky is a lobby to the open web.”

This contrasts with a recent statement from Elon Musk, who didn’t deny claims that X demotes posts with links in them.

Bluesky’s algorithm could help SEO-related content get more visibility. Unlike X, where posts can disappear quickly, Bluesky’s decentralized system and focus on user control allow SEO content to stay visible longer and reach a bigger audience.

Bluesky also offers “starter packs” and curated feeds, making it easy to join industry conversations in real-time.

Looking Ahead

Bluesky could become a preferred social network for SEO professionals, offering space to share website content without losing engagement.

It’s important to watch how Bluesky develops and grows to see if it can replace X as the main platform for the SEO community.

You can take advantage of this platform’s opportunities by staying updated and adapting to changes.


Featured Image: Shutterstock/NasShots

New Report Shows AI Overviews Trends Are Stabilizing via @sejournal, @martinibuster

As we enter the holiday season, October’s data reveals significant shifts and stabilization across industries in AI Overviews (AIOs). Critical insights from October reveal growth in certain sectors, stability in others, and strategic changes in content types and sources. These insights offer actionable strategies for marketers aiming to optimize for AIOs during this critical period.

YouTube Citations In AI Overviews: September Through October

YouTube AI Overviews citations surged in September by 400 – 450% more than the baseline from August when YouTube citations were first tracked. The level then stabilized in October at a level of about 110% to 115% of the August baseline. This gives the impression that this level of YouTube AIO citations may represent a new normal.

The kinds of video content that Google AIO tended to cite were:

  • How-to’s
  • In-depth reviews
  • Product comparisons

BrightEdge’s report observed that YouTube AIO citations in November continued to be stable:

Current State (November): Stabilized at approximately 115-120% with minimal day-to-day variation (±3%).

The next few months will show how satisfied users are with YouTube citations. Presumably Google tested YouTube citations before rolling them out so expectations for dramatic a change should be kept in check because the volatility of YouTube AIO citations was low, indicating that Google may have found the sweet spot for these kinds of citations. So don’t expect this level of YouTube citations to drop although anything is possible.

This trend highlights the continued importance of YouTube video channel as a way to expand reach and the continued evolution away from purely text content. If you embed video on web pages then it’s important to use Video Schema.org structured data.

Massive Growth In Travel Industry AIO Citations

Travel AIO citations surged by 700% from September through October. This may reflect Google’s confidence in AI for making travel recommendations.

BrightEdge offered this advice:

“To capture AIO visibility, travel brands should optimize content around seasonal travel, local events, and specific activities. Many of the keywords that are part of this surge start with “Things to do” which then triggers an unordered list.”

Localized and Activity-Specific Travel Queries

Google AIO is showing citations for more localized travel related queries that are more specific and longtail, which may mean that AI Overviews is handling more of the local travel type queries as opposed to the big destination queries that drilled down to the neighborhood level.

BrightEdge explained:

“Initially, travel AIOs were dominated by broad, general queries focused on major tourist destinations. However, as the month progressed, there was an increase in more localized, activity specific, and seasonal travel searches, reflecting a deeper level of user intent. By November, AIOs were increasingly focused on niche travel queries covering smaller cities, specific neighborhoods, and unique local activities.”

Examples of the pattern of travel queries that triggered AIO are:

  • Top attractions in
  • Things to do in
  • Family friendly activities in
  • Fall festivals in

AIO Is Stabilizing And Maturing

Another interesting insight from the BrightEdge data is that the daily growth of AIO citations slowed down to 1.3%, indicating that we are now entering a more stable phase.

BrightEdge offers this insight:

“We are now six months into the AIO era and seeing macro-changes in AI overviews that are gerng smaller and smaller”

Another statistic that confirms that AIO are here to stay is that volatility in AIO citations decreased by 42%, another sign of stability. This is good news because it means more predictability for what keyword phrases will trigger AIO citations.

BrightEdge notes:

“The stabilization in AIO appearance allows brands to optimize for a consistent presence, par:cularly for evergreen holiday keywords. This benefit campaigns where a steady AIO presence can drive significant traffic and conversions. As AIOs stabilize, planning and incorporating them into strategies becomes easier. This is pivotal insight for marketers who wish to make AI Overviews part of their 2025 strategy.”

Education Topic Performance

Education topics were on a steady growth trajectory of a 5% increase in keyword that trigger AIO, representing 45-50% of keywords. The growth was seen in more complex educational queries like:

  • cybersecurity certification prerequisites
  • career options with a psychology degree
  • psyd vs phd comparison

B2B queries experienced modest growth of 2%, representing 45-50% of keywords and with less volatility in October than September. Healthcare AIO citations were similarly stable with only a 1% change in October and with 73-75% of keywords triggering AIO citations.

Read more about BrightEdge data here.

https://www.brightedge.com/ai-overviews

How Chrome Site Engagement Metrics Are Used via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google Chrome collects site engagement metrics, and Chromium project documentation explains exactly what they are and how they are used.

Site Engagement Metrics

The documentation for the Site Engagement Metrics shares that typing the following into the browser address bar exposes the metrics:

chrome://site-engagement/

What shows up is a list of sites that the browser has visited and Site Engagement Metrics.

Site Engagement Metrics

The Site Engagement Metrics documentation explains that the metrics measure user engagement with a site and that the primary factor used is active time spent. It also offers examples of other signals that may contribute to the measurement.

This is what documentation says:

“The Site Engagement Service provides information about how engaged a user is with a site. The primary signal is the amount of active time the user spends on the site but various other signals may be incorporated (e.g whether a site is added to the homescreen).”

It also shares the following properties of the Chrome Site Engagement Scores:

  • The score is a double from 0-100. The highest number in the range represents a site the user engages with heavily, and the lowest number represents zero engagement.
  • Scores are keyed by origin.
  • Activity on a site increases its score, up to some maximum amount per day.
  • After a period of inactivity the score will start to decay.

What Chrome Site Engagement Scores Are Used For

Google is transparent about the Chrome Site Engagement metrics because the Chromium Project is open source. The documentation explicitly outlines what the site engagement metrics are, the signals used, how they are calculated, and their intended purposes. There is no ambiguity about their function or use. It’s all laid out in detail.

There are three main uses for the site engagement scores and all three are explicitly for improving the user experience within Chromium-based browsers.

Site engagement metrics are used internally by the browser for these three purposes:

  1. Prioritize Resources: Allocate resources like storage or background sync to sites with higher engagement.
  2. Enable Features: Determine thresholds for enabling specific browser features (e.g., app banners, autoplay).
  3. Sort Sites: Organize lists, such as the most-used sites on the New Tab Page or which tabs to discard when memory is low, based on engagement levels.

The documentation states that the engagement scores were specifically designed for the above three use cases.

Prioritize Resources

Google’s documentation explains that Chrome allocates resources (such as storage space) to websites based on their site engagement levels. Sites with higher user engagement scores are given a greater share of these resources within their browser. The purpose is so that the browser prioritizes sites that are more important or frequently used by the user.

This is what the documentation says:

“Allocating resources based on the proportion of overall engagement a site has (e.g storage, background sync)”

Takeaway: One of the reasons for the site engagement score is to prioritize resources to improve the browser user experience.

Role Of Engagement Metrics For Enabling Features

This part of the documentation explains that Chromium uses site engagement scores to determine whether certain browser features are enabled for a website. Examples of features are app banners and video autoplay.

The site engagement metrics are used to determine whether to let videos autoplay on a given site, if the site is above a specific threshold of engagement. This improves the user experience by preventing annoying video autoplay on sites that have low engagement scores.

This is what the documentation states:

“Setting engagement cutoff points for features (e.g app banner, video autoplay, window.alert())”​

Takeaway: The site engagement metrics play a role in determining whether certain features like video autoplay are enabled. The purpose of this metric is to improve the browser user experience.

Sort Sites

The document explicitly says that site engagement scores are used to rank sites for browser functions like tab discarding (when memory is tight) or creating lists of the most-used sites on the New Tab Page (NTP).

“Sorting or prioritizing sites in order of engagement (e.g tab discarding, most used list on NTP)”

Takeaway: Sorting sites based on engagement ensures that the user’s most important and frequently interacted-with sites are prioritized in their browser. It also improves usability through tab management and quick access so that it matches user behavior and preferences.

Privacy

There is absolutely nothing that implies that Google Search uses these site engagement metrics. There is nothing in the documentation that explicitly mentions or implicitly alludes to any other purpose for the site engagement metrics except for improving the user experience and usability of the Chrome browser and Chromium-based devices like the Chromebook.

The engagement scores are limited to a device. The scores aren’t shared between the devices of a single user.

The documentation states:

“The user engagement score are not synced, so decisions made on a given device are made based on the users’ activity on that device alone.”

The user engagement scores are further isolated when users are in Incognito Mode:

“When in incognito mode, site engagement will be copied from the original profile and then allowed to decay and grow independently. There will be no information flow from the incognito profile back to the original profile. Incognito information is deleted when the browser is shut down.”

User engagement scores are deleted when the browser history is cleared:

“Engagement scores are cleared with browsing history.

Origins are deleted when the history service deletes URLs and subsequently reports zero URLs belonging to that origin are left in history.”

The engagement score for a website decreases over time if the user doesn’t interact with the site. This is called “decay” when the user engagement score drops in time. Engagement scores are forgotten which improves the relevance of the scores and how the browser optimizes itself for usability and the user experience.

The impact of user engagement scores that “decay to zero” is that the URLs are completely removed from the browser:

“URLs are cleared when scores decay to zero.”

Takeaway: What Could Google Do With This Data?

It’s understandable that some people, when presented with the facts about Chrome site engagement metrics, will ask, “What if Google is using it?”

Asking “what if” is a powerful way to innovate and explore how a service or a product can be improved or invented. However, basing business decisions on speculative ‘what if’ questions that contradict established facts is counterproductive.

These metrics are solely for improving browser user experience and usability, the scores are not synched and are limited to the device, the scores are further isolated in Incognito Mode and the scores are completely erased when users stop interacting with a site.

That means that the question, “What if Chrome shared site engagement signals with Google?” has no basis in fact. The purpose of these signals and their documented use cases are fully transparent and well understood to be limited to browser usability.

Read the Chromium documentation:

For Developers > Design Documents > Site Engagement

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Cast Of Thousands

Automattic Quietly Intensifies WP Engine Tracker Site via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Automattic quietly updated the WP Engine Tracker website with an activity log showing a continuously updated list of domains that have switched away from managed WordPress host, WP Engine. This update is part of Mullenweg’s self-described “nuclear war” against WP Engine, with the Tracker site actively promoting competitors by offering links to their hosting promotions.

WP Engine Tracker

Automattic created a website for the purpose of tracking how many sites have abandoned WP Engine six September 21st, 2024, the date that Matt Mullenweg started went “nuclear” on WP Engine after they rebuffed his request for $32 million dollars. The website promotes deals with other web hosts for moving away from WP Engine, and a CSV spreadsheet with the domain names of the sites that have left WP Engine.

At some point after launching the website was updated with a list of the top web hosts that WP Engine customers have migrated to and a constantly updated list of sites that have recently moved.

WP Engine Tracker “Activity Log Today”

Automattic escalated what the WP Engine Tracker website does by adding an additional feature that shows a continually updated running list of domains that have migrated away from WP Engine and the destination host.

Screenshot Of Activity Log Today Feature

WP Engine Lawsuit

The WP Engine Tracker website, created by Automattic and Matt Mullenweg to publicly monitor and offer links to promotions to other web hosts, was cited in a preliminary injunction filed by WP Engine as evidence of Mullenweg’s purposeful “attack on WPE” as part of his “nuclear war” against the managed WordPress host.

The preliminary injunction filed by WP Engine explains:

“Just last week, in an apparent effort to brag about how successful they have been in harming WPE, Defendants created a website—www.wordpressenginetracker.com—that “list[s] . . . every domain hosted by @wpengine, which you can see decline every day. 15,080 sites have left already since September 21st.

September 21 was not selected randomly. It is the day after Defendants’ self-proclaimed nuclear war began – an admission that these customer losses were caused by Defendants’ wrongful actions. In this extraordinary attack on WPE and its customers, Defendants included on their disparaging website a downloadable file of ‘all [WPE] sites ready for a new home’—that is, WPE’s customer list, literally inviting others to target and poach WPE’s clients while Defendants’ attacks on WPE continued..”

But available transcripts of the preliminary injunction hearing of November 26th do not show that it was mentioned. The judge at that hearing asked the plaintiff and defendants to return to court on Monday December 2nd with an agreement on a narrow and specific scope for a preliminary injunction, having said that the original request was too vague and consequently unenforceable.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Gearstd

ChatGPT Search Shows 76.5% Error Rate In Attribution Study via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

OpenAI’s ChatGPT Search is struggling to accurately cite news publishers, according to a study by Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism.

The report found frequent misquotes and incorrect attributions, raising concerns among publishers about brand visibility and control over their content.

Additionally, the findings challenge OpenAI’s commitment to responsible AI development in journalism.

Background On ChatGPT Search

OpenAI launched ChatGPT Search last month, claiming it collaborated extensively with the news industry and incorporated publisher feedback.

This contrasts with the original 2022 rollout of ChatGPT, where publishers discovered their content had been used to train the AI models without notice or consent.

Now, OpenAI allows publishers to specify via the robots.txt file whether they want to be included in ChatGPT Search results.

However, the Tow Center’s findings suggest publishers face the risk of misattribution and misrepresentation regardless of their participation choice.

Accuracy Issues

The Tow Center evaluated ChatGPT Search’s ability to identify sources of quotes from 20 publications.

Key findings include:

  • Of 200 queries, 153 responses were incorrect.
  • The AI rarely acknowledged its mistakes.
  • Phrases like “possibly” were used in only seven responses.

ChatGPT often prioritized pleasing users over accuracy, which could mislead readers and harm publisher reputations.

Additionally, researchers found ChatGPT Search is inconsistent when asked the same question multiple times, likely due to the randomness baked into its language model.

Citing Copied & Syndicated Content

Researchers find ChatGPT Search sometimes cites copied or syndicated articles instead of original sources.

This is likely due to publisher restrictions or system limitations.

For example, when asked for a quote from a New York Times article (currently involved in a lawsuit against OpenAI and blocking its crawlers), ChatGPT linked to an unauthorized version on another site.

Even with MIT Technology Review, which allows OpenAI’s crawlers, the chatbot cited a syndicated copy rather than the original.

The Tow Center found that all publishers risk misrepresentation by ChatGPT Search:

  • Enabling crawlers doesn’t guarantee visibility.
  • Blocking crawlers doesn’t prevent content from showing up.

These issues raise concerns about OpenAI’s content filtering and its approach to journalism, which may push people away from original publishers.

OpenAI’s Response

OpenAI responded to the Tow Center’s findings by stating that it supports publishers through clear attribution and helps users discover content with summaries, quotes, and links.

An OpenAI spokesperson stated:

“We support publishers and creators by helping 250M weekly ChatGPT users discover quality content through summaries, quotes, clear links, and attribution. We’ve collaborated with partners to improve in-line citation accuracy and respect publisher preferences, including enabling how they appear in search by managing OAI-SearchBot in their robots.txt. We’ll keep enhancing search results.”

While the company has worked to improve citation accuracy, OpenAI says it’s difficult to address specific misattribution issues.

OpenAI remains committed to improving its search product.

Looking Ahead

If OpenAI wants to collaborate with the news industry, it should ensure publisher content is represented accurately in ChatGPT Search.

Publishers currently have limited power and are closely watching legal cases against OpenAI. Outcomes could impact content usage rights and give publishers more control.

As generative search products like ChatGPT change how people engage with news, OpenAI must demonstrate a commitment to responsible journalism to earn user trust.


Featured Image: Robert Way/Shutterstock