AI bot activity surged 300% in 2025, with media and publishing among the most targeted sectors, according to a new Akamai report.

Why we care. AI bots are reshaping how content is discovered and consumed, shifting users from search clicks to instant answers in chat interfaces. Publishers are seeing fewer visits from organic search and often don’t get attribution in AI-generated answers. It’s also eroding ad and subscription models.

The threat is real. Publishers now face two threats:

• Training bots that ingest content for models.
• Fetcher bots that extract real-time content for immediate answers. These pose the bigger risk because they capture value as it’s created.

The impact. Pageviews are declining, costs are rising (because scraping bots increase infrastructure costs by consuming server and CDN resources without generating revenue), and brand visibility is weakening.

• AI chatbot referrals drive ~96% less traffic than traditional search
• Users click cited sources in AI answers only ~1% of the time

What publishers are doing. Publishers are adopting nuanced controls (rather than blanket blocking AI bots), such as:

• Monitoring and classifying bot traffic.
• Selectively blocking or slowing malicious scrapers (e.g., tarpitting).
• Allowing approved bots tied to licensing or partnerships.

What they’re saying. According to Akamai’s report:

• “These bots are not just a security nuisance, they represent a profound business challenge that threatens the sustainability of quality journalism in an age dominated by zero-click searches and AI-generated content.”
• “The publishing industry today faces an existential crisis … Many readers and visitors still value trustworthy reporting and original content. Yet, instead of clicking through search results, users now turn to AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT and Gemini for instant answers and summaries.”

What’s next? A “pay-per-crawl” model is emerging. Tools like identity verification (Know Your Agent) and platforms like TollBit aim to authenticate bots and charge for access in real time.

• The goal is to turn scraping into a measurable, monetizable transaction instead of uncontrolled extraction.

About the data. The report analyzed Akamai bot management data from July to December 2025, covering application-layer traffic across websites, apps, and APIs.

The report. SOTI Security Insight Series: Navigating the AI Bot Era (registration required)

The March 2026 core update finished rolling out today after 12 days and 4 hours, completing Google’s first broad ranking update of the year.

What happened. Google confirmed the rollout ended at 06:12 PDT, per its Search Status Dashboard. The update began March 27 and impacted search rankings globally.

• Google previously said this was “a regular update designed to better surface relevant, satisfying content for searchers from all types of sites.”

The timeline. Google originally estimated the March 2026 core update would take up to two weeks to complete.

• Started: March 27.
• Completed: April 8.
• Total rollout: 12 days, 4 hours

The context. This was the first core update of 2026. It followed the March 2026 spam update and the February 2026 Discover update.

• Core updates introduce broad changes to ranking systems and typically drive noticeable volatility across search results.

What to do if you were impacted. Google didn’t issue any new guidance for the March 2026 core update. Its standing advice remains:

• Ranking drops don’t necessarily mean something is wrong.
• Recovery often comes with future updates, not immediate fixes.
• Focus on helpful, reliable, people-first content.

Google continues to point site owners to its core update and helpful content guidance.

Why we care. Now that the rollout is complete, you can assess impact with more confidence. Analyze ranking and traffic changes, identify winners and losers, and adjust your content strategy based on what the update appears to reward.

Previous core updates. Here’s a timeline and our coverage of recent core updates:

• The December 2025 core update was on Dec. 12 and ended on Dec. 29.
• The June 2025 core update was on June 30 and ended on July 17.
• The March 2025 core update was on Mar. 13 and ended on Mar. 27.
• The December 2024 core update was on Dec. 12 and ended on Dec. 18.
• The November 2024 core update was on Nov. 11 and ended on Dec. 5.
• The August 2024 core update was on Aug. 15 and ended on Sept. 3.
• The March 2024 core update was on March 5 and ended on April 19.

Google Search is evolving beyond links and answers into a system that completes tasks, potentially fundamentally changing how users interact with the web. That’s according to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, speaking on the Cheeky Pint podcast.

Why we care. Google is signaling a move from information retrieval to task execution.

Search becoming agentic. Traditional search behavior is already changing and will continue to, Pichai said.

• “If I fast-forward, a lot of what are just information-seeking queries will be agentic in Search. You’ll be completing tasks. You’ll have many threads running.”

Pichai also described a future where Google Search acts less like a list of results and more like a system that coordinates actions:

• “Search would be an agent manager in which you’re doing a lot of things. I think in some ways, I use Antigravity today, and you have a bunch of agents doing stuff. I can see search doing versions of those things, and you’re getting a bunch of stuff done.”

AI Mode is already changing queries. Users are already adapting their behavior in Google’s AI-powered search experiences, Pichai said:

• “But today in AI Mode in Search, people do deep research queries. That doesn’t quite fit the definition of what you’re saying. But people adapted to that. I think people will do long-running tasks.”

Search vs. Gemini overlap. Despite the rise of Gemini, Pichai said Google isn’t replacing Search with a chatbot. Instead, the two will coexist — and diverge (echoing what Liz Reid said last month):

• “We are doing both Search and Gemini. They will overlap in certain ways. They will profoundly diverge in certain ways. I think it’s good to have both and embrace it.”

The interview. The history and future of AI at Google, with Sundar Pichai

💾

Google’s AI Overviews answered a standard factual benchmark correctly 91% of the time in February, up from 85% in October, according to a New York Times analysis with AI startup Oumi.

However, Google handles more than 5 trillion searches per year, so that means tens of millions of answers every hour may be wrong.

Why we care. We’ve watched Google shift from linking to sources to summarizing them for more than two years. This report suggests AI Overviews are improving, but still mix correct answers, weak sourcing, and clear errors in ways that can mislead searchers and reshape which publishers get visibility and clicks.

The details. Oumi tested 4,326 Google searches using SimpleQA, a widely used benchmark for measuring factual accuracy in AI systems, the Times reported. It found AI Overviews were accurate 85% of the time with Gemini 2 and 91% after an upgrade to Gemini 3.

• The bigger problem may be sourcing. Oumi found that more than half of the correct February responses were “ungrounded,” meaning the linked sources didn’t fully support the answer.
• That makes verification harder. The answer may be right, but the cited pages may not clearly show why.

What changed. Accuracy improved between October and February, but grounding worsened. In October, 37% of correct answers were ungrounded; in February, that rose to 56%.

Examples. The Times highlighted several misses:

• For a query about when Bob Marley’s home became a museum, Google answered 1987; the correct year was 1986, according to the Times, and the cited sources didn’t support the claim or conflicted.
• For a query about Yo-Yo Ma and the Classical Music Hall of Fame, Google linked to the organization’s site but still said there was no record of his induction.
• In another case, Google gave the correct age at Dick Drago’s death but misstated his date of death.

Google’s response: Google disputed the Times analysis, saying the study used a flawed benchmark and didn’t reflect what people actually search. Google spokesperson Ned Adriance told the Times the study had “serious holes.”

• Google also said AI Overviews use search ranking and safety systems to reduce spam and has long warned that AI responses can contain mistakes.

The report. How Accurate Are Google’s A.I. Overviews? (subscription required)

Over 30% of outbound clicks go to just 10 domains, with Google alone taking more than 20%, according to a new Semrush study published today.

ChatGPT also relies less on the live web, triggering search on 34.5% of queries, down from 46% in late 2024.

The big picture. ChatGPT’s growth has plateaued, and its role in how users navigate the web is evolving unevenly.

• Referral traffic from ChatGPT grew 206%, comparing January 2025 to January 2026.

The details. Most ChatGPT referral traffic still goes to a small set of sites, even as more sites receive some traffic.

• Google accounts for 21.6% of all ChatGPT referral traffic.
• The next nine domains bring the top 10 to just over 30% of referrals.
• Most other sites get a long tail of minimal traffic.
• The number of domains receiving referrals expanded, peaking at around 260,000 in 2025 before settling near 170,000.

Why we care. Visibility in ChatGPT doesn’t translate evenly into traffic, and you’ll likely see marginal referral impact. The decline in search-triggered queries also limits your chances to earn citations and traffic.

When ChatGPT searches. It defaults to pre-trained knowledge and uses web search in specific cases, including:

• User requests for sources.
• Questions about recent events.
• Situations where the model lacks confidence.

Behavior shift. Most ChatGPT prompts still don’t resemble traditional search queries.

• Between 65% and 85% of prompts don’t match standard keywords, reflecting more complex, conversational inputs.
• Meanwhile, engagement is deepening. Queries per session jumped 50% in late 2025.

About the data. Semrush analyzed more than 1 billion lines of U.S. clickstream data from October 2024 to February 2026 across a 200 million-user panel, tracking prompts, referral destinations, and search usage.

The study. ChatGPT traffic analysis: Insights from 17 months of clickstream data

Google is rolling out new Google Maps features that make it easier to contribute photos, reviews, and local insights, while adding Gemini-powered caption suggestions.

Local Guides redesign. Contributor profiles are getting more visibility. Total points now appear more prominently, Local Guide levels are easier to spot, and badge designs have been refreshed.

• Top contributors will also stand out more in reviews with new gold profile indicators.

AI caption drafts. Google is also introducing AI-generated caption drafts. Gemini analyzes selected images and suggests text you can edit or discard.

• Caption suggestions are available in English on iOS in the U.S., with Android and broader global expansion planned.

Media sharing. Google Maps now shows recent photos and videos directly in the Contribute tab, making uploads faster.

• If you enable media access, Google Maps will suggest images from your camera roll that are ready to post with a tap.
• This feature is now live globally on iOS and Android.

Why we care. Google is making it easier to create and scale fresh local content, which can directly affect rankings and visibility. At the same time, stronger contributor signals may influence which reviews users trust and which businesses win clicks.

💾

If you rank your own product #1 in “best of” listicles, it’s not just a search-quality issue — it may violate FTC rules that took effect in October 2024.

Driving the news. As Lily Ray noted on LinkedIn, the FTC’s Consumer Review Rule (16 CFR Part 465) prohibits several deceptive practices tied to reviews and testimonials, including:

• Presenting company-controlled content as independent reviews.
• Publishing reviews of products or services never actually used.
• Attributing reviews to people who didn’t write them.

Penalties can reach up to $53,088 per violation, and each page may count separately. Ray also shared a reference table she generated with the help of Claude:

Why now. “Best X” and “Top 10 Y” listicles have surged as a GEO tactic over the past couple of years. These pages often perform well in search and increasingly influence AI-generated answers.

The backstory. Before the rule was formalized, Ray said at least one company faced legal action for publishing hundreds of “best of” pages that:

• Ranked its own services #1.
• Included fabricated competitor reviews.
• Used fake reviews on third-party platforms.

The Better Business Bureau later censured the company for unsubstantiated claims.

What’s happening. Many modern listicles follow a similar pattern:

• A brand publishes a “best tools” list.
• Includes competitors it hasn’t tested.
• Uses subjective or invented scoring systems.
• Ranks itself #1.

These listicles may imply independence or firsthand evaluation when neither exists.

The nuance. You can publish comparison content that includes your own product. However, based on FTC guidance, risk increases when:

• You imply objectivity, but promote your own product.
• You present reviews not based on real experience.
• You fail to clearly disclose material relationships.

What Google is saying. Google is aware of the low-quality listicle trend. In a statement to The Verge, a Google spokesperson said the company applies protections against manipulation in Search and Gemini, and reiterated its guidance: create content for people and ensure it’s understandable to search systems.

Why we care. What has worked as a visibility tactic may carry risk on two fronts — regulators and a potential Google Search algorithm change. That means this popular GEO tactic could decline quickly as its effectiveness drops.

Caveat. I’m not a lawyer. Consult your own legal counsel if you’re concerned about using this tactic.

Human-written content dominates Google’s top rankings, appearing in the No. 1 position 80% of the time versus just 9% for purely AI-generated pages, based on a Semrush analysis of 42,000 blog posts.

The details. Semrush analyzed 20,000 keywords and their top 10 results, classifying content with an AI detector.

• Human-written pages outperformed AI and mixed content across all top 10 positions.
• The gap was widest at Position 1, where human content was 8x more likely to rank.
• AI content appeared more often lower on Page 1, nearly doubling from Positions 1 to 4.

Yes, but. AI detection tools are widely known to be inconsistent and can misclassify human and AI-written content, creating some possible “fuzziness” in these classifications.

Why we care. AI-generated content works, until it doesn’t. Yes, AI can help you rank, but this data suggests human insight still drives the best performance. For competitive queries, originality, expertise, and editorial judgment remain your unfair advantages.

Perception vs. data. 72% of SEOs said AI content performs as well as or better than human content, yet ranking data showed a clear human advantage at the top.

How teams use AI. No surprise, AI is widely adopted and often used in a hybrid approach:

• 87% of teams keep humans heavily involved in content creation.
• 64% use a human-led, AI-assisted workflow.
• AI is most common in research, drafting, and optimization.
• Use drops sharply for multimedia, localization, and higher-judgment tasks.

What’s driving adoption. AI accelerates output, but doesn’t reliably improve it.

• 70% cite faster production as AI’s top benefit.
• Only 19% say it improves content quality.

About the data: The analysis examined 42,000 blog pages from 200,000 URLs tied to 20,000 keywords, using GPTZero to classify content. It also includes a survey of 224 SEO professionals working in content and search.

The study. Does AI content rank well in search? [Survey + Data study]

Google is fixing a long-running Search Console bug that inflated impression counts. As the fix rolls out, reported impressions will decrease.

What happened. A logging error caused Google Search Console to over-report impressions starting May 13, 2025. Google today updated its Data anomalies in Search Console page:

• “A logging error is preventing Search Console from accurately reporting impressions from May 13, 2025 onward. This issue will be resolved over the next few weeks; as a result, you may notice a decrease in impressions in the Search Console Performance report. Clicks and other metrics were not affected by the error, and this issue affected data logging only.”

A Google spokesperson told Search Engine Land:

• “We identified a reporting error in Search Console that temporarily led to an over-reporting of impressions from May 13, 2025 onward. Bug fixes are being implemented to ensure accurate reporting.”

What’s changing. Google is deploying fixes that will change how impressions are recorded and reported. As the rollout continues, you’ll likely see a drop in impressions in the Performance report. Clicks and other metrics aren’t affected.

The timeline. The issue began May 13, 2025 and persisted until now. Google said the correction will take several weeks to fully roll out across reporting.

Why we care. If your Google Search Console impressions change in the coming weeks, it will likely be due to this bug fix.