Bing is testing clickable, underlined text within the descriptions of its organic search results. When clicked, this text doesn’t take you to the website’s landing page like you might expect instead, it redirects you to a new search query within Bing’s own results.

Here is a screenshot of how it looks.

This suggests Bing may be more focused on keeping users engaged within its own search experience surfacing related queries directly from organic content rather than driving traffic out to the underlying site. It’s a notable difference from how we’d typically expect clickable text in a result description to behave.

https://searchenginewatch.com/bing-tests-clickable-underlined-text-in-organic-result-descriptions/

DuckDuckGo is the best private search engine for most people, but it is not the right answer for every threat model. We examined what seven active services collect, where their results come from, how they make money, and whether their AI can really be turned off. Read below for the full list and analysis.

Privacy search has a marketing problem. Almost every alternative to Google says it does not track you. That phrase can mean anything from “we do not build an advertising profile” to “we briefly process your IP address, send your query to another company, retain an anonymous copy, and display ads without tying any of it back to you.” Those are not the same promise.

There is also no universal best search engine once relevance, price, index independence and AI enter the picture. The most private configuration may be too slow or technical for daily use. The search engine with the strongest results may require an account or send a query to an upstream index. A provider can minimize its own collection and still be visible to your internet provider or the sites you click.

Our answer for a typical reader is DuckDuckGo. It is free, works on desktop and mobile, requires no account, and offers a dedicated no-AI version. Choose Brave Search instead if independence from Bing matters more. If you will pay for a stronger product, Kagi is the best premium option.

The short list

Best overall: DuckDuckGo ⭐⭐⭐

DuckDuckGo wins by being the easiest privacy improvement that most people will keep using.

Its privacy policy says it does not write an IP address or unique identifier to disk alongside a query. It does retain anonymous search terms for tasks such as correcting misspellings and improving results, but says those terms are disconnected from anything that identifies a person. That is more precise—and more believable—than pretending the service never processes data at all.

DuckDuckGo combines its own crawlers and many instant-answer sources, but its traditional links and images are largely supplied by Microsoft Bing. That gives it broad coverage without handing Microsoft a user’s direct identity, but it also means DuckDuckGo is not an independent web index in the way Brave or Mojeek is.

The clearest reason it ranks first in 2026 is noai.duckduckgo.com. The dedicated version turns off Search Assist and Duck.ai and filters images identified as AI-generated. It answers “best search engine for privacy and no AI” more cleanly than a buried toggle that leaves an AI button in the interface.

The compromise is relevance. In a recent r/privacy discussion, the most repeated complaint is not privacy—it is having to repeat detailed searches elsewhere, especially for forum posts, troubleshooting and nuanced questions. That experience is not universal, but it is common enough to take seriously. DuckDuckGo’s !bang shortcuts make fallback easy, although using a bang sends you to the destination search service and subjects that search to the destination’s privacy practices.

Choose DuckDuckGo if: you want the best free balance of privacy, convenience and no-AI control on iPhone, Android and desktop.

Skip it if: you regularly run obscure research, technical or user-generated-content searches and dislike using a fallback.

Best paid: Kagi ⭐⭐

Kagi is what search looks like when the customer pays instead of the advertiser.

There are no ads, and the product provides unusually strong result controls. You can raise, lower or block domains; choose lenses; and use sources drawn from Kagi’s own indexes and anonymized requests to other traditional indexes. Kagi’s current plans include a 100-search trial, $5 a month for 300 searches, $10 for unlimited search and $25 for an Ultimate tier with premium AI features.

The subscription is both its privacy advantage and its most obvious obstacle. Kagi requires an account for billing, although it says searches are anonymized and not associated with that account. Its privacy materials describe temporary search-query debugging logs, with search queries said to be removed after seven days. That is more retention than a purist might want, even when the query is not attached to the account.

Supported paid plans can use Privacy Pass, which issues anonymous tokens so the search service can confirm entitlement without seeing the user’s account identity. It is a thoughtful design, but not available on every plan or browser; Safari is a notable limitation.

Kagi also has the best AI control in this group. Its Search AI settings state that AI is invoked on demand. Turning AI off hides its Search interface elements and prevents explicit AI triggers. Users who do want AI should read Kagi’s separate provider disclosures, because model vendors may have their own limited retention rules.

Choose Kagi if: search is important enough to justify $10 a month and you want high-quality controls without advertising.

Skip it if: you want an account-free service, zero temporary query retention, or a fully capable free tier.

Best independent free index: Brave Search ⭐⭐

Brave Search is the strongest answer to a different question: which private search engine is least dependent on Google and Microsoft?

Brave says the standard service runs on its own independent web index. That matters beyond branding. A private front end to Bing can protect a user’s identity, but it does not create competition at the infrastructure level. Brave controls crawling, ranking and delivery end to end. An optional Google fallback can supplement a weak result set, but enabling it naturally reduces that independence.

Its privacy policy says IP addresses are not retained and search ads are contextual rather than based on a personal profile. Brave’s anonymous usage metrics are enabled by default. The company says those metrics exclude actual query text, IP addresses and unique identifiers, but privacy-conscious users should still consider switching them off in Search settings.

Brave loses points on the no-AI question. You can turn off automatic “Answer with AI” summaries, but the Ask entry point remains in the search interface. That may be acceptable to someone who simply does not want generated text placed above links. It is not a complete AI-free mode in the DuckDuckGo or Kagi sense.

Choose Brave Search if: you want a free, capable private search engine with its own index and can tolerate an optional AI surface.

Skip it if: “no AI” means no AI button, prompt or generative feature anywhere in the search experience.

Best for familiar Google and Bing results: Startpage ⭐

Startpage is the least disruptive move for someone who likes mainstream results but does not want a mainstream engine building the personal search profile.

It submits searches to Google and Bing on the user’s behalf and returns the results. Startpage says it does not record IP addresses or user agents, keeps only aggregate search counts by language, and uses transient anti-abuse techniques instead of a conventional IP log. It also avoids tracking cookies; an optional preference cookie can remember settings.

Anonymous View extends that proxy model after the results page. Startpage retrieves a destination page with its own IP address and displays it to the user. It can be useful for a quick read, but scripts and interactive functions may break. It should not be confused with the stronger anonymity and traffic separation Tor is designed to provide.

Startpage’s core results do not currently contain generative AI summaries. Its Instant Answers are conventional result modules and can be disabled.

The trust caveat is corporate and evidentiary. Startpage operates from the Netherlands, but System1—an advertising-technology company—invested through Privacy One. Startpage says its management controls privacy decisions. There is no public evidence in the reviewed materials that System1 has overturned those practices, but the strongest audit talking point is old: Startpage says its regular EuroPriSe recertification was postponed in 2017.

Choose Startpage if: familiar result quality matters more than index independence and you want no generative layer in core search.

Skip it if: ownership by an ad-tech group or reliance on Google and Bing is outside your threat model.

Best nonprofit metasearch: MetaGer ⭐

MetaGer combines several appealing properties that rarely appear together: it is operated by a German nonprofit, publishes its code, has no ads, and does not require a personal account.

Its July 2026 privacy policy says IP addresses and user agents are neither saved nor shared. Because MetaGer is a metasearch engine, it must send the query to result partners. It says returned results and the query are kept for display for a few hours. Its current source list includes Brave, Mojeek and Google results supplied through Serper.

Instead of an account, MetaGer gives the user a random key. A one-time payment adds tokens; the service estimates that €5 for roughly 500 tokens lasts a typical user around two months. Cash payment is available for people who want to avoid a payment trail. The key can also unlock a proxy that loads destination pages on MetaGer’s servers.

This is a credible privacy design, but it is less convenient than opening a free search page. MetaGer has browser integrations and an Android app, but no native iOS app. We also found no standard generative-answer layer in the reviewed search product, making it a good no-AI option for users comfortable with its payment model.

Choose MetaGer if: you value nonprofit governance, open code, no advertising and an anonymous payment/access model.

Skip it if: you want a frictionless free default or a polished native iPhone app.

Best UK private search engine: Mojeek

Mojeek is the clearest answer for a UK reader who wants a locally based search company and a genuinely independent index.

The Brighton-based company crawls and ranks the web itself. Its privacy policy says operational logs are retained indefinitely but do not contain IP addresses; the IP is replaced with a two-letter country code. Mojeek describes the remaining data as non-personal and says it does not set a cookie unless a user chooses to save preferences.

Mojeek does offer a generative Search Summary, but it is user-triggered rather than automatically placed above every result set. The answer appears alongside traditional links and includes citations. That makes Mojeek a reasonable choice for someone who wants AI off by default, even though it is not an engine built without AI capability.

The cost of independence is index depth. Mojeek can be excellent for straightforward discovery and provides a different ranking perspective, but its smaller corpus is less dependable for obscure, highly local, shopping or rapidly changing queries. Keep a fallback available.

Choose Mojeek if: UK jurisdiction and independence from Google, Bing and Brave matter most.

Skip it if: you need one engine to handle every deep or time-sensitive query.

Best for self-hosting: SearXNG

SearXNG is not a single search company. It is open-source metasearch software that can query a configurable mix of external services and remove identifying headers and cookies before doing so.

That flexibility explains why privacy communities recommend it—and why simplistic rankings often get it wrong. If you use a public instance, you must trust the administrator. SearXNG’s own instance guidance warns that an operator could log or sell data. If you self-host, you control the logs, but upstream search engines still see requests coming from your instance. A server used by only one person can produce a query stream that is easier to separate than one shared by many users.

The default software does not impose a generative answer layer, although instance operators can change the interface or add engines. Speed, uptime, result mix and privacy therefore vary by instance.

Choose SearXNG if: you understand the deployment model and want maximum control over sources and configuration.

Skip it if: you want a service whose privacy properties, support and uptime are consistent without technical work.

Popular privacy search engines we did not recommend

These products are not necessarily “bad.” They simply do not support the same top-line privacy recommendation under their current availability and published terms.

What Reddit users get right—and what Reddit cannot prove

There is no secret community consensus that the product pages are hiding. Recent privacy threads repeat the same trade-offs: DuckDuckGo is convenient but can struggle on detailed searches; Kagi earns praise but costs $10 a month for unlimited use; Startpage provides familiar results but prompts ownership questions; and SearXNG offers control at the cost of setup, speed and trust in an instance operator.

That lived experience is useful when judging whether someone will keep a new default. It cannot verify what happens on a provider’s servers. Reddit comments about an engine “selling data,” being “compromised” or offering perfect anonymity are not evidence unless they point to a policy, audit, technical finding or documented incident. This ranking therefore uses community reports for usability and official disclosures for data-handling claims. The clearest current example is a thread asking for both privacy and convenience: the replies reveal real compromises, not one uncontested winner.

Private search is not anonymous search

A private search engine primarily limits what the search provider records and how it profiles the user. It does not make the whole browsing session invisible.

• The search provider receives a network connection and may briefly process an IP address even if it does not retain it.
• HTTPS normally hides the query text from the internet provider, but the provider can still see the domain being contacted.
• Once you click a result, the destination site applies its own cookies, scripts, fingerprinting and account rules.
• Search suggestions can transmit text as it is typed, before the query is submitted.
• A !bang shortcut takes the user to another search service; the destination’s privacy policy then applies.

If the goal is to hide an IP address from the search provider, Privacy Guides recommends considering Tor or a trusted VPN. Tor Browser is the stronger anonymity tool, but its privacy benefits depend on using it correctly. A private search engine is one layer, not an invisibility cloak.

Which private search engine should you choose?

• For most people: DuckDuckGo.
• For mainstream search with built-in AI features switched off: noai.duckduckgo.com.
• For the best paid experience: Kagi Professional at $10 a month.
• For an independent free index: Brave Search.
• For familiar Google/Bing-style results: Startpage.
• For nonprofit, ad-free metasearch: MetaGer.
• For a UK-based independent engine: Mojeek.
• For self-hosting and source control: SearXNG.
• For iPhone: DuckDuckGo is the simplest all-in-one option; Startpage and Brave also have mobile-browser routes.
• For Android: DuckDuckGo and Brave offer the easiest full mobile experiences; MetaGer and Mojeek also have Android apps.

How to change the default on iPhone and Android

On iPhone, Apple’s current default-search guide shows the available choice in Safari settings. The exact list depends on iOS version and region. If the provider is not offered, use its app, browser or Safari extension instead.

On Android, Chrome exposes the choice under More > Settings > Search engine; Google documents the current steps in its Chrome help page. A privacy-focused browser can expose a different provider list. If you use DuckDuckGo’s no-AI endpoint, add it as a custom search engine where the browser permits it or bookmark it as the search home page.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best search engine for privacy?

DuckDuckGo is the best private search engine for most people in 2026. It does not associate search queries with retained IP addresses or unique identifiers, requires no account, works across desktop and mobile, and has a dedicated no-AI version. Brave Search is the better choice if index independence is the priority.

What is the most private search engine?

There is no universal answer without a threat model. MetaGer’s anonymous-key design and SearXNG under a carefully operated deployment can minimize different kinds of exposure. For mainstream use, DuckDuckGo, Brave Search and Startpage provide a stronger balance of privacy and usability. Use Tor if the search provider must not see your real IP address.

Which private search engine has no AI?

DuckDuckGo provides the clearest no-AI option at noai.duckduckgo.com, which disables its AI features and filters AI-generated images. Kagi can hide and disable Search AI from settings. Startpage’s core search currently has no generative answer layer. MetaGer also had no standard generative-answer feature in the product reviewed for this article.

Is DuckDuckGo really private?

DuckDuckGo says it does not retain IP addresses or unique identifiers with search queries and does not build personal search profiles. It does retain anonymous query strings for product improvement. Its traditional link and image results are largely sourced from Bing, but DuckDuckGo says requests are proxied so Microsoft does not receive the user’s direct identity.

Is Startpage safer than DuckDuckGo?

Both have strong published privacy practices, but they optimize for different things. Startpage proxies Google and Bing and may provide more familiar results. DuckDuckGo is easier to use across devices and has stronger no-AI controls. Startpage’s System1 ownership and old public audit history are reasonable trust considerations.

Is Brave Search more private than DuckDuckGo?

Brave retains no IP address and operates its own index, which reduces exposure to an upstream search provider. DuckDuckGo also avoids a personal search profile but relies heavily on Bing for standard results. DuckDuckGo has the better complete no-AI mode; Brave has the stronger independence story.

What is the best private search engine for iPhone?

DuckDuckGo is the simplest recommendation because it offers an iOS app and can be used as a default search option in common browsers. Startpage also offers an iOS browser app, and Brave integrates Brave Search into its iPhone browser. Exact default-search choices vary by browser, iOS version and region.

What is the best private search engine for Android?

DuckDuckGo and Brave provide the most complete Android experiences. MetaGer and Mojeek also offer Android apps, while SearXNG can be used through a browser or a configured instance.

Are private search engines more secure?

They can reduce profiling and the exposure of sensitive queries, but they do not automatically block malware, prevent browser fingerprinting or secure the sites opened from results. Browser security, software updates, tracker blocking, careful account use and, where appropriate, Tor or a trusted VPN still matter.

https://searchenginewatch.com/best-search-engine-for-privacy/

Earlier this year, Google launched a new AI Performance Report within Google Search Console, nested under the main Performance report. This new report lets site owners see impressions, pages, countries, devices, and dates but notably, it doesn’t include query data.

Recently, Anastasia Kourou posted on LinkedIn about spotting odd queries in her regular Search Console performance report things like:

• “Yes”
• “Yes, go on.”
• “Yes, pricing”

Kourou found these queries odd enough to flag, and John Mueller from Google responded with some clarification. He wrote: “Search Console includes information on AI Overviews and AI Mode in the general performance report.

There’s a bit more on this at this URL

The linked documentation explains: “If a user asks a follow-up question within AI Mode, they are essentially performing a new query. All impression, position, and click data in the new response are counted as coming from this new user query.”

Here is the screenshot.

So here’s what’s happening: when someone uses AI Mode and responds with something like “yes” to continue a conversation, Google treats that as a brand-new query and it gets logged into the regular Search Console performance report, complete with its own impressions, clicks, and position data.

Just as we’ve come to assume that unusually long, conversational-style queries in Search Console likely originated from AI Overviews or AI Mode, short follow-up responses like “yes” are now another signal pointing to the same source.
Have you spotted odd, conversational queries like these in your own Search Console reports?

https://searchenginewatch.com/google-search-console-shows-ai-mode-follow-up-queries/

Bing is testing a new section on its search results page called “Top Source.” Based on what we’re seeing, this section appears to group together multiple pieces of content whether individual pages or news articles from a single site.

Here is the screenshot of how it looks.

Here is the X post.

We’ve noticed Bing testing additional source-focused sections on its results pages recently, suggesting Bing may be exploring different ways to highlight authoritative or dominant sources for certain searches.

Microsoft hasn’t confirmed this test, so it’s worth treating this as a limited experiment for now. Not all users are likely seeing this on Bing.

https://searchenginewatch.com/bing-tests-new-top-source-section-in-search-results/

Google recently rolled out a preferred sources feature on the search results page. When a user selects a website as a preferred source, that site’s content is more likely to show up in Top Stories and gets highlighted as a preferred source within AI Overviews and AI Mode.

Here is a screenshot of how it looks.

This feature is available for all languages. Google noted that preferred sources apply to AI Overviews and AI Mode, and that only domain-level and subdomain-level sites are eligible not subdirectories. So a site like:

• https://www.example.com/
• https://code.example.com/

would be eligible, but something like https://www.example.com/blog would not.

How To Check If Your Site Is Eligible

Before doing anything else, check whether your site actually shows up in the source preferences tool. If it does, you can guide users to select it as a preferred source.

How To Send Users Directly To The Source Preferences Tool

You can use this URL format to take users straight to the tool:

• https://google.com/preferences/source?q=Your_Website’s_URL

For example, if your site is example.com, the link would be:

• https://google.com/preferences/source?q=example.com

Sharing this link with your audience in a newsletter, on social, or on your site gives them a direct path to mark your domain as a preferred source, which could help increase your visibility in Top Stories and AI-generated results going forward.

Here is Google’s official documentation.

Have you checked whether your site is eligible for preferred sources yet?

https://searchenginewatch.com/how-to-help-users-find-your-site-through-preferred-sources-in-search-results/

I have dozens of conversations per week with folks in growth and marketing, ranging from directors, VPs of marketing, and CMOs to SEOs in the nitty-gritty day-to-day.

Many of my conversations involve measurement. This is an increasingly challenging topic as traditional SEO metrics are breaking down with the advent of AI answers.

Much of the conversation is spent debunking misconceptions and misguided advice operators see on social media.

It’s not an easy conversation, but it’s important. This means telling people to avoid many of the things they see people promote on social media. It’s not an easy conversation, but it’s the right conversation.

My goal here is to clear up the confusion so you can tie your AI visibility efforts to business outcomes.

What To Track

These are a mix of leading and lagging indicators that you have varying degrees of control over. I’ll make the case for why each one matters, then we’ll cover how to influence them.

Prompts

This is the most obvious and most important decision, because what you measure influences behavior. From dozens of conversations, it’s also what many people get wrong.

It becomes the first domino in a chain of mismeasurement. None of the other metrics, like citation share, brand mentions, or visibility, matter if you’re tracking the wrong set of prompts.

Most AI visibility tools like Profound, Peec, and AirOps will automatically recommend prompts to track, but these are rarely what you should focus on. I haven’t confirmed this, but from what I can tell, they analyze your website and map existing pages back to prompts. They assume the pages already on your site are the ones that should be cited or visible in LLM outputs.

That might be true. But most companies we speak to say, “We aren’t appearing for the prompts we want to show up for,” which tells me they don’t have the right strategy and thus haven’t published the right pages.

AI Visibility

You can see how, if you’re tracking the wrong prompts, you’ll measure visibility for the wrong things.

From our perspective across dozens of clients, ChatGPT is the most commonly used LLM, but it’s worth tracking how often your brand shows up for your target prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Perplexity, Claude, and Copilot as well.

This is important because ChatGPT’s user base skews consumer, while Claude’s user base skews business and enterprise. If you’re a B2B business, Claude has fewer users, but those users are using Claude at work, which is the context that matters.

Google has also made AI mode more prominent, and with Chrome having dominant market share, many people will see AI mode outputs by default.

Tracking each model separately lets you see whether a change in visibility or traffic is isolated to one model or happening across all of them.

There are also significant differences in how each model searches for and presents information. For example, Claude’s use of Brave versus ChatGPT’s use of Bing; they have their different methodologies for selecting sources; and each model has preferred sources through media partnerships.

Self-Reported Attribution

For most of the last decade, marketers leaned on clickstream analytics and UTM parameters to tell them where leads came from.

That paradigm has been breaking down for a while, and it now shows an even smaller part of the picture.

LLMs are zero-click by design. When someone asks ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude a question, the answer is provided in the chat. They don’t click through. They research in the conversation, then they might do a Google search for your brand directly or type your URL straight in. Your analytics and CRM platforms will log that traffic as “Organic” or “Direct,” but the reality is that an LLM is what led to the person going to your website.

Self-reported attribution is the simplest yet highest-signal way to get more of the story. We recommend simply asking people, “How did you hear about us?” There are well-known and documented flaws to self-reported attribution (mostly human memory and salience of touchpoints), so it won’t be perfect, but it’s the buyer telling you, in their own words, how they found you.

If you capture that information through a field on your lead form, you can then track those lead sources in your CRM to pipeline and closed revenue. That’s the ultimate success metric for a marketing channel.

One client that added it discovered ~5% of registrations were coming from ChatGPT despite doing zero work around AI visibility.

Below is a chart from our internal dashboard. These are the number of people who filled out our consultation form and stated that they found us through an LLM, split by the HubSpot-tagged source. Where possible, HubSpot automatically tags the source as “AI Referrals” (red).

We found that 80-90% of leads that came in via an AI platform were incorrectly tagged as “organic” or “direct.”

What To Monitor, But Not Set As KPIs

These metrics tend to be related but not the ultimate goal, and often not what you have control over.

Citations

This is the strategic piece that people mistakenly view as the success metric.

Off-page sources dominate citations at every funnel stage. Our research on citation sources found that, even for branded or bottom-funnel queries, 48% of sources were earned media, 30% were commercial content from other sites, and only 22% were from the brand’s own website.

So you should be measuring what percentage of attainable mentions you currently occupy across third-party surfaces. If it’s 1%, there’s massive headroom.

And remember that just because you’re cited, it doesn’t mean you’re recommended or presented in the LLM output.

This means that, yes, you should look at citations, but not simply to see if your website is cited, but whether your brand is mentioned on the most cited pages.

Sentiment

I get a lot of questions from marketers who say, “ChatGPT shows our brand in a less favorable light than it does our competitors. How do we improve that?”

Influencing market sentiment about a brand is a massive undertaking that no single person can control.

There are tactics you could use to influence the sentiment LLMs present, like engaging on relevant Reddit threads or producing content that paints your brand in a better light.

Ultimately, what LLMs present about your brand is not what the LLM thinks–it’s what the market is saying about your brand across hundreds of websites.

That has more to do with people’s experience with your product, your sales team, your customer support, and the overall customer experience your company provides. Marketing is just a small piece of that. No amount of marketing will overcome a negative experience with your brand.

So monitor sentiment, but treat it less as something to influence through marketing and more as feedback to improve the customer experience, which in turn improves sentiment.

LLM Referral Traffic

This is worth monitoring, but not a good KPI because you can’t control this.

OpenAI recently changed how ChatGPT presents sources and reduced the number of sources it showed. As a result, many websites lost ChatGPT referral traffic. However, they reversed that change a month later and showed more citations, leading to a large increase in ChatGPT referral traffic. That makes for a volatile KPI.

Beyond that, a lot of LLM traffic doesn’t get tagged as LLM referral traffic by tools like HubSpot or Google Analytics because the referral source is getting stripped. So traffic ends up being bucketed under direct.

How To Measure The Most Important Metrics

How Do You Track The Right Prompts?

The mistake many teams make is letting their AI visibility tool pick their prompts for them or trying to guess what prompts to track.

The problem is that those tools don’t know your customers. The good news: you do. That knowledge already exists as sales call recordings and transcripts, onboarding calls, and customer research calls. These are rich sources you can mine for voice of customer to understand:

• What questions come up frequently?
• What objections come up?
• What language do they use to describe pain points or challenges?

If your prospects are asking these questions on a call, they – and people like them – are asking the same questions of ChatGPT or Claude.

The other source is self-reported attribution (see below). Once you’ve implemented self-reported attribution, your sales team can see whether a lead came through an LLM and simply ask them what prompt they used or even request a screenshot of the chat thread. In my experience, people are happy to share.

Between call transcripts and direct buyer input, you replace guesswork with the exact language customers use.

Your target prompts can and probably should change. We recommend reviewing prompts against voice-of-customer research quarterly, especially if you’re in a fast-moving industry.

How Do You Measure AI Visibility In ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Etc.?

Once you have your set of prompts, we recommend using Profound, Peec, or AirOps for tracking prompts.

Watch for the default channels that get tracked. For example, we don’t care much for Perplexity, and Claude is often not included as a default LLM. So we prioritize Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, and AI Mode.

Put in your prompts, track your competitors, and track your visibility over time.

How Do You Set Up And Report On Self-Reported Attribution?

I mentioned above that platforms like Google Analytics and HubSpot don’t give the full picture of a lead source.

We recommend having a method to capture self-reported attribution so that a person can explicitly tell you how they found you. This won’t be perfect (attribution never is), but it will give you another informative data point.

This will also allow you to track sales opportunities, pipeline, and ultimately revenue that came in via LLMs.

I’ve seen this done in three ways:

1. Add a question for “How did you hear about us?” in your lead or product signup forms. You can keep it open-ended or offer a dropdown with pre-defined options and have “AI Assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.)” as an option. Some clients are averse to this because they don’t want to negatively impact conversion rates. I’d recommend running an A/B test to see if that’s actually the case.
2. Add the “How did you find out about us?” question to your product onboarding flow. This addresses the concern about conversion rates, but doesn’t account for pure sales-led motions.
3. Have your sales team ask on their discovery calls. This requires a behavior change from your sales team, and the downside is it doesn’t account for self-service products.

Focus On What Pays The Bills

When we talk about paid marketing, we usually don’t measure success by the number of impressions because impressions don’t pay the bills. Instead, we talk about return on ad spend. For every dollar we put in, how many dollars do we get out?

It isn’t quite apples-to-apples, but the same logic applies. Instead of measuring visibility or citations (which don’t pay the bills), we should ask whether we’re reaching the right people through LLMs, and whether that visibility translates into business outcomes.

That means focusing on leads, pipeline, and revenue.

More Resources:

Featured Image: RobinRmD/Shutterstock

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/ai-visibility-measurement-what-to-track-what-to-ignore/582009/

Reddit’s Q2 earnings call revealed that Reddit intends to surface more evergreen content to users. The company also explained that it intends to make its search bar more visually engaging by integrating advertising modules. It’s clear that Reddit aspires to compete with online content publishers and become a stronger competitor to social networks.

Reddit Targeting Recommendations And Reviews

The question was whether Huffman could visualize the Reddit feed integrating video and machine learning in the way other social platforms do, what the engagement trends were within Reddit’s app search, and where Reddit stood on launching advertising within the app search results.

Huffman responded that, with the search bar fully integrated within its app, Reddit is now seeing growth in the number of people who search and in the number of searches. He characterized its progress as “chipping away” at it.

He then pivoted to sharing his opinion that Reddit is the best place to surface recommendations and reviews.

Huffman explained his point:

“And I think for many queries – for many queries that I run at least – Reddit is now the best platform for searching Reddit. That hasn’t always been the case.

…But I think any query where you want to know something or want to see multiple perspectives, like what should I watch? What do people think about this? What should I buy? Reddit … provides the best answers on the internet. So I’m really encouraged with the progress there, and we’re starting to look towards ads on that surface which I’ll turn it over to Jen to address.”

Monetizing Reddit Search With Ads

Reddit’s advertising aspirations are dependent on getting the search part right. And part of getting that search part right is being able to surface recommendations and reviews.

Chief Operating Officer Jen Wong expressly tied search to the consumer’s shopping experience, explaining that there are two angles to it. The first angle was adding product images and rich media modules to search. The second part was adding advertising modules with multiple retailers and products.

Wong explained:

“So search is in a space where it’s very married to like a shopping experience. And so we — there’s a couple of different angles to this.

One is that we think that the search page can be enriched with more like rich media modules. So it can have product visuals from the catalogs that we have when people are searching or discussing or a specific product.

And we’ve started to do that. We had done a test earlier on electronics and consumer electronics and now we’ve expanded those categories. And so that enriches the core search experience and hopefully increases engagement so people get more out of that experience.

And I do agree with Steve, that I think especially the agentic ask function on Reddit search, I think, is now the best way to search Reddit.

The second is, what goes along with that engagement at the product level when you have a match is ads, right? So I talked about our Shopping Listing Ads where you can have a module that has multiple different retailers and product types and brands in one module. That’s a great sort for a search page.

And that’s ultimately how I think ads would be well represented on search. So that’s a space that we’re eyeing. We clearly have the capability to do it. We keep tracking as the page settles and as users adopt that, …we do see an advertising opportunity there. And the good news is we have the infrastructure, and I think a lot of that capability, already queued up.”

Reddit Wants To Surface Evergreen Content

Huffman expressed that they have a massive amount of evergreen content about parenting and reviews that they want to show within their feeds.

User feeds are recommendation engines. Google Discover and YouTube are examples of recommendation engines that show the latest articles and videos that users are likely to engage with.

Google Discover and YouTube prioritize fresh content; evergreen content is not a priority for Google. But it is a priority for Reddit because they have a massive amount of evergreen content that users can engage with.

Unfortunately for Reddit, their feed is bottlenecked because of “small models” that hinder Reddit from showing evergreen topics. This is a serious problem for Reddit because their technology constrains them to show only a week’s worth of content.

That’s good news for publishers that rely on evergreen content. However, once Reddit solves this problem, they will be on a path that leads toward keeping users on Reddit for longer periods, engaging with evergreen topics, including product reviews.

This is the question that was asked:

“And then on the feed models, I don’t know if you can maybe give us some type of purview into the drivers. Obviously, there’s a lot that goes into building these models between retrieval and ranking and serving and refresh and there’s million different parameters, and I probably don’t want to get too much detail, but just kind of any sense can you give us on maybe what are some of the specific areas you’re focusing within the feed improvement?”

Huffman replied:

“So …posts that are eligible for recommendation, Reddit right now is limited to a week. So Reddit is basically… our feed is almost like a real-time feed where we have this actual mass of corpus. Much of that content is timeless.

So think about things like parenting advice or book or movie reviews, things like that are relevant for a very long time. We don’t show this on the feed at all.

So we can dramatically improve candidate selection, model size, model speed, the signals that go in from users, pretty much every dimension. We have, sometimes order of magnitude improvement opportunity. So we’ll be doing that work over the next year, and I expect every improvement we make to work because we’re just starting from such a low base.”

Reddit Intends To Surface More Reviews And Evergreen Content

This is a compelling sign that Reddit intends to surface its vast amount of reviews, advice, and recommendations through its feed, as well as more aggressively monetize product searches with advertising. This may not be good news to publishers of evergreen content, like recipes and reviews, but there is still at least a year.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Diego Thomazini

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/reddit-ceo-intends-to-show-more-reviews-and-recommendations/584731/

John Shehata, CEO of NewzDash, found something in July that a lot of publishers threatening to block Google’s AI don’t realize is already happening underneath them. Google has started folding entire Top Stories carousels directly inside AI Overviews, and the robots.txt directive most publishers reach for first does nothing to stop it.

Shehata posted on LinkedIn that nearly one in six U.S. trending news queries now place Top Stories inside AI Overviews, and followed it with a full data breakdown on the NewzDash SEO for News blog.

Google Has Run This Play Before

The topic he is describing is not new in kind, but it is new in mechanism. In 2006, John and I spoke on a panel about “Vertical Creep Into Regular Search Results” at the Search Engine Strategies New York conference. We discussed how Google was quietly pulling what appeared in Google News into its main web results before Universal Search formally arrived. Danny Sullivan called that May 2007 rollout the most radical change Google had ever shipped to its results, blending video, images, books, and news into a single ranked list instead of 10 blue links. Google’s own announcement framed it the same way, describing a shift toward one integrated set of results rather than separate verticals users had to hunt through individually.

Nineteen years later, Google is doing it again. This time the destination isn’t a blended results page. It’s an AI-generated answer.

What NewzDash’s Data Shows

According to NewzDash’s tracking, among trending news queries where Google displays Top Stories at all, 15.5% in the U.S. and 17.46% in the UK now show that carousel embedded inside the AI Overview rather than as its own standalone module below it. Entertainment queries lead both countries, clearing 35% in the U.S. and 31.5% in the UK. World News hits nearly 32% in the U.S. Health and Science queries barely register. Shehata’s data also shows the two placements are mutually exclusive. When Top Stories lives inside the AI Overview, Google is not also running a separate carousel further down the page for the same query.

That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should, because it reframes the entire opt-out conversation publishers have been having since AI Overviews launched.

Google-Extended Is Not An AI Overviews Opt-Out

Most publishers who want out point their robots.txt at Google-Extended and consider the matter settled. It isn’t. Google’s own crawler documentation states plainly that Google-Extended governs specified AI training and grounding uses, things like feeding future Gemini models or grounding certain Vertex AI responses, and explicitly does not affect a site’s inclusion in Google Search or function as a ranking signal. Blocking it does not remove a publisher from AI Overviews, AI Mode, standard Top Stories, or Top Stories embedded inside an AI Overview. Shehata is right to keep hammering on this, because the confusion is not a fringe misunderstanding. It’s the default assumption across the industry.

The Control That Reaches AI Overviews Is A Different One Entirely

Google began testing a generative AI exclusion inside Search Console in June, currently limited to a subset of UK site owners. It lets an eligible publisher exclude their links and content from AI Overviews, AI Mode, and generative Discover features specifically, without touching their eligibility for traditional Search. Google’s support documentation says an excluded site’s content won’t appear in those features and won’t even be used as an input for generating a response. Choose that setting and, by Shehata’s reading, you almost certainly lose your spot in the embedded Top Stories carousel too, since it’s just a collection of publisher links riding inside one of the covered surfaces.

Google has not confirmed what happens next at the layout level. Would the AI Overview keep showing an embedded carousel built from the publishers who remained opted in? Would Google fall back to a standalone Top Stories module instead? Nobody outside Mountain View knows yet, and Shehata is careful to label this a high-confidence interpretation rather than a documented outcome. That kind of restraint is rarer than it should be in AI SEO commentary right now, and it’s a large part of why I trust his data over the louder takes circulating on the same topic.

The Bigger Story Is Trust

I think the bigger story here is not the mechanics of Google-Extended versus the Search Console control, even though publishers genuinely need to understand that difference before they touch a setting. The bigger story is that AI Overviews’ central problem has always been trust, not visibility. Users don’t yet have a reliable way to know whether an AI-generated answer is drawing on something a credible newsroom actually reported or synthesizing something thinner. Pulling Top Stories, with its named publishers, real bylines, and direct links, into the body of the AI Overview instead of stacking it below a wall of generated text is a genuine, if incomplete, answer to that problem. I’ve watched Google reshuffle where news lives in its results since the “vertical creep” days of 2006. This is the first move in the AI Overview era that looks aimed at rebuilding trust rather than just reducing clicks to the open web.

Although this is my considered opinion, it comes with a caveat. A step in the right direction is not the same as a finished solution, and Google’s refusal to document what happens to publishers who opt out is exactly the kind of ambiguity that erodes the trust this move is supposed to build.

3 Things To Do This Week

For SEO practitioners managing news clients or in-house newsroom sites, three things are worth doing this week rather than waiting for Google to clarify the layout question.

First, separate your controls before you touch either one. Audit whether your site currently blocks Google-Extended, uses the new Search Console generative AI exclusion, or neither, and document which surfaces each one actually governs. Treating them as interchangeable is how a site accidentally forfeits AI Overview visibility while believing it only opted out of training data.

Second, if you have access to the Search Console exclusion, test it on a URL-prefix property or a single section before applying it sitewide. Google’s control supports inheritance between parent and child properties, which means a news publisher can trial the exclusion on, say, an opinion vertical and watch what happens to that section’s Top Stories eligibility before deciding whether the tradeoff is worth it domain-wide.

Third, start pulling Google’s generative AI performance reports in Search Console now, and pair them with a tool like NewzDash that tracks how often your URLs surface inside Top Stories carousels versus embedded AI Overview placements. You cannot make an informed opt-out decision without a baseline for how much visibility is actually at stake, and that baseline needs to exist before you flip the setting, not after.

Twenty years ago, “vertical creep” meant publishers had to figure out how a blended results page would treat their headlines. Today, it means figuring out how a generated answer treats them instead. The mechanism changed, but the need for publishers to understand exactly what they’re opting into, and out of, did not. John Shehata is doing the unglamorous work of documenting that shift in real time, and until Google says otherwise, his data is the closest thing the industry has to ground truth.

More Resources:

Featured Image: PeopleImages/Shutterstock

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/what-top-stories-inside-ai-overviews-means-for-publishers-and-brands-in-2026-and-beyond/584175/

Google is rolling out a Search Console setting that lets you pull your content out of AI Overviews, AI Mode, and Discover’s AI features without leaving Search. That’s a choice we haven’t had before, and regulators in the UK now require Google to offer it.

Whether to use it is a harder question than it seems because the tradeoffs keep stacking up. Tracking data released this week by NewzDash, which sells news-visibility tracking to publishers, found Top Stories carousels rendering inside AI Overviews on U.S. trending news results. That means opting out of AI could mean opting out of Top Stories.

Here’s what the new Search Console setting does, how it got here, and what’s worth knowing before you touch it.

What The Control Covers

The Search generative AI control lives under Settings in Search Console. Google is rolling it out to a subset of website owners, so not every account has it yet. The default option to include your website lets content appear as links and helps ground AI responses in AI Overviews, AI Mode, and Discover’s generative AI features, with whatever impressions and traffic that brings. Excluding your site removes it from those features, links included.

Google said it would begin respecting these changes on June 17. Changes generally take a few days to process, then content should drop out within one to two days, though caching can delay it.

The setting isn’t a ranking or inclusion signal anywhere else in Search, so using it shouldn’t affect regular results. It doesn’t override separate choices in Merchant Center or Google Ads, so Shopping participation stays its own decision. And it doesn’t touch AI training, which runs through a different control.

The choice began appearing on accounts outside the UK in July. Jamie Indigo, Director of Technical SEO at Cox Automotive, flagged the setting on a U.S. account on LinkedIn: “Search generative AI controls in Google Search Console. I’m not even British and it’s not even my birthday!”

How The Opt-Out Choice Took Shape

Until this year, there was no way to keep a page out of Google’s AI features without keeping it out of Search.

Robots.txt, noindex, and snippet directives have been around long before AI Overviews. None of these tools specifically separate generative features from others.

For example, Nosnippet removes content from AI Overviews, but it also takes out traditional snippets at the same time. This all-or-nothing approach was something Google acknowledged in January, when it mentioned it was exploring ways to opt out of AI features.

Google-Extended has addressed some of this issue. The robots.txt token controls whether crawled content can be used for training future Gemini models that power Gemini Apps and the Vertex AI API for Gemini, and for grounding in Gemini Apps and Grounding with Google Search on Vertex AI. It didn’t control whether content could appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode. Google’s crawler docs say Google-Extended doesn’t affect a site’s inclusion in Search and isn’t a ranking signal.

The Search Console setting offers a different choice by removing a site from Google’s AI features and nothing else. It was born through a regulator and a product team working on the same problem at once.

Google made a statement in January that landed the same day the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority opened a consultation on requiring AI opt-outs. In June, the CMA imposed a conduct requirement requiring Google to give websites more control over how their content is used in generative AI, and Google began testing the toggle with UK properties the same week. In the UK, this requirement makes the control obligations mandatory, with deadlines extending into next year.

When Traditional Features Sit Inside AI Surfaces

Google’s setting treats AI features and regular results as separate things. The issue with that is Google’s results don’t always separate AI and organic results. When a Top Stories carousel from organic search renders inside an AI Overview, one toggle may control both.

John Shehata, CEO and founder of NewzDash and GDdash, put a number on it: “Nearly 1 in 6 U.S. trending news queries now place Top Stories inside AI Overviews.” The 15.5% rate applies to tracked results where Google displayed Top Stories, not to all queries NewzDash tracked. The UK figure is 17.46%.

Additionally, he found the embedded carousel and the standalone version didn’t appear together. NewzDash hasn’t published sample sizes or collection dates alongside the figures.

Kyle Sutton, Head of SEO and AI Discovery at The Washington Post, sees the same pattern anecdotally. He wrote in a comment on Shehata’s post: “Anecdotally, seems we’re all seeing it a lot more often.” His comment doesn’t confirm NewzDash’s rate or how it was measured.

Shehata connects it to the new control: “Using Google’s newer Search Console generative AI opt-out is different, and will likely remove publishers from Top Stories inside AI Overviews.”

That’s his interpretation, which Google hasn’t officially confirmed. According to Google’s help page, sites that are excluded won’t show up in AI features. As of now, Google’s help page doesn’t say how the control handles a traditional feature that’s shown within an AI feature.

If his understanding is correct, choosing to opt out could mean missing out on placements that were never advertised as AI features.

What To Check Before Opting Out

Before anyone touches the new Search Console settings, there are three things to check:

1. How much visibility your site gets from AI features
2. Which of Google’s controls governs what.
3. How the tradeoffs could affect your business.

Start with where your site shows up in AI features today. The generative AI performance report, also rolling out to a subset of accounts, shows impressions from AI features by page, country, device, and date. It combines AI Overviews and AI Mode, and it carries no clicks and no queries.

Broader analytics can show Google organic referrals, time on site, and conversions, but they can’t assign visits to either AI feature. In practice, that means there’s no clean baseline for AI traffic or conversions to weigh the decision against.

The CMA’s requirement says more data should come. Its interpretive notes list impressions, click-throughs, and click-through rate as metrics Google should provide, delivered “through a commonly accessible platform.”

I wrote about that gap when the setting launched without the data to use it. The reports only cover impressions today.

Vahe Arabian, founder and editor-in-chief of State of Digital Publishing, described the working answer this month: “The job isn’t picking a favourite dashboard; it’s blending them into one scorecard.”

Next, sort out which lever controls what. Here’s what the differences are:

• The Search generative AI control affects links and grounding inside Search and Discover AI features.
• Google-Extended controls specified Gemini model training, including training for models used in Search generative AI responses, plus grounding in Gemini Apps and Grounding with Google Search on Vertex AI.

Notably, Google-Extended does not determine what content shows up in Search. Search visibility is governed by factors like crawling, indexing, and preview controls, from Googlebot rules to noindex tags and snippet directives. Robots.txt only manages crawling, not content removal from Search. Shehata’s post highlighted the same distinction regarding Google-Extended.

Finally, weigh the variables that matter for your business. For news publishers, Top Stories exposure is one of the things the toggle may control. For ecommerce sites, site content and Merchant Center or Ads participation are separate decisions, because the control doesn’t override either.

For any business, the question is what showing up in AI features is worth against the traffic it may replace, and the honest answer is that the numbers to settle it don’t exist yet.

One argument against opting out has been on record since before the control shipped. Writing earlier this year, while the CMA was still weighing the requirement, Rahul Jain, CEO and co-founder of Noble, argued on LinkedIn: “Opting out of Google’s AI Overviews will hurt most publishers more than it helps.”

His reasoning is that exclusion takes websites away from where the attention is, rather than safeguarding them. Noble sells services designed to help brands appear in AI-generated answers.

The Limits Of The Available Controls

The Search Console control works at the property level, and page-level controls for grounding in generative Search features aren’t due until March 2027 under the CMA’s timeline.

In a recent paper published in the Journal of European Competition Law and Practice this spring, University of Oxford researcher Spencer Cohen and UCL competition-law PhD candidate Todd Davies shared their thoughts that this type of remedy might not be enough.

“We argue that forcing Google to let websites opt-out of appearing in AI Overviews would be ineffective,” Davies, who the paper discloses worked at Google as a software engineer until 2022, wrote in a LinkedIn post summarizing the paper. Their case is that an opt-out doesn’t protect publisher business models or create meaningful choice over how content is used.

Whether the control gives businesses a real choice or a symbolic one depends on data that doesn’t exist yet and placements that are still moving.

Looking Ahead: Click Data & Page-Level Controls Are Coming

Here’s what you can expect in the coming year regarding the decision.

The CMA requires Google to share click data and click-through rates, along with tools for publishers to assess those clicks, with most of these measures starting in December.

By March 2027, Google is required to offer more detailed page-level controls for generative Search features, providing a more precise option than the current property-based settings. Additionally, Google will need to report on its compliance every six months during the first year, moving to annual reports if the regulator is generally satisfied.

The two main things to keep an eye on are whether Google broadens these controls and reports beyond the current group of website owners, and whether the embedded Top Stories pattern becomes more widespread in tracked data. NewzDash has said it plans to test the opt-out effect directly.

Currently, the choice is available, but it’s not clear what the cost of using it might be, and the schedule for measuring that cost is in place.

More Resources:

Featured Image: Golden Dayz/Shutterstock

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/what-opting-out-of-googles-ai-search-features-means-now/584321/

Cloudflare and the three major browser makers want to prove there is a human behind your traffic. They announced how on June 22, 2026, as more and more of that traffic comes from agents with no human behind it at all. PACT answers the case where a person is in the loop. The case the web is moving toward, an agent acting on its own, is something PACT doesn’t touch.

On June 22, Cloudflare announced PACT (Private Access Control Tokens) with Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Shopify. The idea: A website that has, in Cloudflare’s words, “strong knowledge of personhood” issues an anonymous token, and your browser carries that token to other websites to prove a human is in the loop, or that a bot is an authorized agent. It is meant to replace CAPTCHAs and forced logins. Cloudflare’s reason is the agentic shift itself: The internet is moving from human-driven clicks to agent activity, and the old binary of block-or-allow no longer fits.

If this sounds like a tracking nightmare, one website vouching for you and the proof trailing you around the web, it is the exact thing PACT is built to avoid. The tokens are anonymous and unlinkable by design, the same approach behind the privacy-preserving tokens that already stand in for CAPTCHAs on much of the web: The website that issues one cannot see where you spend it, the website you hand it to cannot tie it back to you, and two uses cannot be linked. The aim is to prove a human is present without the logins, CAPTCHAs, and fingerprinting that do that invasively today. The harder question is who gets to be a trusted issuer of personhood, which is real power over who counts as human online, and it concentrates with the same few infrastructure companies.

3 Rival Browsers Backing 1 Protocol Is The Signal

Getting Chrome, Firefox, and Edge into the same room on anything at the access layer is rare, and adding Cloudflare and Shopify means the proposal spans the browser, the network edge, and a major commerce platform at once. When that group commits to a shared protocol, it tends to become real eventually, the way Privacy Pass and passkeys did. So PACT is worth watching.

It is also, today, only a proposal. The collaborators have committed to developing it and submitting it for standardization. Nothing has been released, there is no origin trial, and there is no version your website can check against this quarter. That gap between a serious coalition and a usable protocol is usually measured in years.

PACT Answers Whether A Human Is Present, Not Whether An Agent Is Allowed

PACT verifies that a human is present. That is the human-directed case: A person clicks something, or points an agent at a task, and there is a person in the loop to vouch for. It is a real case, and proving it cleanly without CAPTCHAs or tracking would be a genuine improvement.

Detecting a real human is worth doing, and as bots flood the web it gets more valuable, not less. A clean human signal is what anyone fighting fraud, fake accounts, or manipulated reviews wants, and the rarer real people get in the traffic, the more that signal is worth. But PACT answers only one of the two questions the agentic web is splitting along. Once no human is driving, you still have to know whether the autonomous agent is allowed to be here, acting for whom, permitted to do what. PACT does not answer that. By design, it answers the other one.

That second question has its own track, and other people are building it. Google registered its web agent under a verifiable identity. Web Bot Auth lets identifiable crawlers sign their requests. Estonia moved to issue agents state-backed ID codes with scoped permissions, view, edit, or pay, up to a limit. Those are all attempts to identify and authorize the agent itself. PACT is the personhood track. The access layer is splitting into two, and they are not interchangeable.

Decide Which Track Your Traffic Needs

There is nothing to implement, because nothing is live yet. The useful move while this is still a proposal is to figure out which track your traffic actually needs, because they are different problems with different infrastructure. If your risk is fraud and abuse from traffic pretending to be people, you want the personhood track, and PACT is the thing to follow. If your future is agents transacting on your website on a customer’s behalf, you want the authorization track, and PACT will not help you. Most websites have never had to separate those two, because until this year, a visitor was a person by default.

PACT is a real answer to a real question: Is there a person here? The mistake will be reading it as an answer to the question the agentic web actually turns on, which is what to do with an agent when there is no person behind it. That one is still open, and it is the one worth watching.

More Resources:

This post was originally published on No Hacks.

Featured Image: xiaobaiv/Shutterstock

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/cloudflares-pact-is-not-live-yet-decide-which-track-your-traffic-needs/580328/