Who is behind these numbers
One person, one measurement, and a published methodology. Who is behind the numbers on this site and why they are reported the way they are.
- Engines
- 5
- Answers per scan
- 250
- Domains published
- 54,082
Standing is very small
Said plainly, because you would find out anyway and because it bears on how much to trust the method.
The “we” you will read elsewhere on this site is the company's voice, not a headcount claim. You will talk to somebody who wrote the measurement code rather than to an account manager, and the delivery windows on the services page are small-team windows. They are published, and they are the ones we hold to.
How one number here is made
Every tool in this category prints a score. The argument is about what a score is allowed to mean.
Every engine samples from a distribution, so one ask is one draw. Repeating the basket is what turns a draw into a measurement, and what the interval below is measured from.
Not a change
The two intervals overlap, so nothing here is bigger than the noise these engines produce on their own.
A change
No overlap. This is the only shape that gets reported as movement, and it is the shape a re-scan often fails to produce.
The bands show the shape of the comparison, not anybody's result.
Most tools ask once, print a number out of 100 and move on. When that number goes from 34 to 38, nobody can tell the customer whether it was their work or the weather. This is the unflattering alternative: a re-scan sometimes reports that work a customer paid for has not landed yet, which is a bad sales technique and the only honest thing to do.
What we will not do
The commitments that cost money, listed because they are the ones worth checking. Open any of them for the reasoning.
Nobody controls what these engines say. Services are priced on the work delivered, never on an outcome we do not control, and anyone promising a guaranteed AI mention is selling something they cannot deliver.
A number with no error bar cannot be acted on. If a scan degrades far enough that no interval can be computed, the result is withheld rather than published bare.
Blocking GPTBot or ClaudeBot keeps your content out of future models. It does not remove you from an answer. Most tools in this category report the two as the same thing, and that error is why several of these pages exist.
Review work here means making it easy for real customers to leave real reviews. No incentivised reviews, no filtering by sentiment before asking.
A refused fetch is our request being turned away, not a finding about your site. Absence of evidence gets reported as unknown.
Published work
Everything here is live and checkable, which is the only kind of credential this field has.
How Standing describes itself
The same two sentences used in our schema, our listings and every profile.
Standing measures whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews recommend a business when buyers ask. Every score is published with the confidence interval it is accurate to, so a real change can be told apart from the noise these engines produce on their own.
The longer version, including the facts anyone is welcome to state about us and the claims we will not make, is published for AI assistants to read.
Check it yourself
Run the free check on your own domain and see whether the report tells you something you did not know, including the places where it says it cannot tell you anything.