Blog

How AI visibility actually gets measured

Every article runs on real scan data (including our own bad numbers), and each one comes with a companion film that shows the same numbers moving. No “future of search” essays.

The whereamimentioned overview screen for Loo.koo.mas: an AI Visibility Score of 31, a 26.7% presence rate with a 95% confidence interval of 10.9%–52.0%, 19.0% Share of Voice, 100% sentiment, and 3.2% citation share.
Measurement9 min readCompanion film, 1:11

How to Check Whether AI Models Mention Your Brand: A 15-Answer Walkthrough

A real scan, start to finish: five buyer questions, three grounded models, fifteen answers, and what the resulting 26.7% presence rate actually licenses you to say.

The published score-weights table on the whereamimentioned methodology page: presence 0.30, prominence 0.20, Share of Voice 0.20, citation share 0.15, sentiment 0.10, stability 0.05.
Methodology10 min readCompanion film, 1:11

AI Visibility Score: Rebuilding a Real 31/100 by Hand

Six weighted components, three per-engine scores, one blend. We take a real score of 31 apart to the last decimal and show which component is quietly costing the most.

A presence rate of 26.7% shown with a 95% confidence interval of 10.9%–52.0%, the interval produced by only fifteen answers.
Measurement10 min readCompanion film, 1:12

How Many Prompts Do You Actually Need to Measure AI Visibility?

The margin of error is 0.98 ÷ √(prompts × models × runs). That one formula settles most arguments about prompt-set size, including why 97 runs of one prompt is a waste.

Per-model AI Visibility Scores for the same brand on the same day: GPT-5.5 at 11, Gemini 3.5 Flash at 40, Claude Sonnet 5 at 42.46.
Measurement9 min readCompanion film, 1:18

AI Recommendations Change Almost Every Time You Ask. Track This Instead.

Temperature zero does not make a model deterministic. Here is what actually causes the churn, what the 2026 studies measured, and which four numbers survive it.

The head-to-head Share of Voice table: Loo.koo.mas at 19.0% with four mentions and average position 1.5, followed by fourteen other brands the models named.
Methodology8 min readCompanion film, 1:08

Share of Voice in AI Answers: 19% or 40%? The Denominator Decides

One scan, two legitimate Share of Voice figures, 19.0% and 40.0%, separated only by which brands you count. Why we publish the smaller one.

The cited-domains table showing google.com at 46.0% of citations, tripadvisor.com at 12.7%, icelandreview.com at 7.9%, and the brand's own lookoomas.com at 3.2%, bucketed owned versus third party.
Methodology9 min readCompanion film, 1:07

Mention vs Citation: Why 62% of Your AI Citations Never Say Your Name

Being named and being linked are different events with different causes. A brand named in 26.7% of answers held 3.2% of the citations in the same scan.

Answer drilldown showing three models on one prompt: Claude tagged Mentioned and Positive, GPT-5.5 and Gemini both tagged Not mentioned with a low-confidence badge despite naming the brand in the answer text.
Methodology10 min readCompanion film, 1:12

When Your AI Visibility Tool Is Tracking the Wrong Brand

A tool once reported 30 mentions that were 28 references to a fictional character. Here is the gate that prevents it, and the six real mentions our own scan threw away to keep it.

The free llms.txt validator scoring a pasted file 100 (valid and clean, three sections, seven link entries, 1 KB) with a note explaining what the Optional section means to an agent.
Technical SEO8 min readCompanion film, 1:15

Is llms.txt Worth Shipping in 2026? What 137,000 Sites Showed

Ahrefs found 97% of llms.txt files get zero AI-crawler traffic and no major engine has confirmed reading one. The file still has exactly one job worth doing.

The AI crawler access checker verdict for whereamimentioned.com: no AI crawler blocked, with OAI-SearchBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, Applebot and the rest each marked Allowed and the deciding robots.txt line quoted underneath.
Technical SEO9 min readCompanion film, 1:21

Blocking GPTBot Does Nothing to ChatGPT Search. Check the Other Token.

Training crawlers, search indexers, user-fetchers and control tokens are four different things sharing one file. Confusing them is how sites disappear from AI answers by accident.

Per-model AI Visibility Scores of 11 for GPT-5.5, 40 for Gemini 3.5 Flash and 42.46 for Claude Sonnet 5. The most expensive engine produced the lowest score.
Pricing9 min readCompanion film, 1:08

What One AI Visibility Scan Actually Costs: $2.14 for 15 Answers

Real per-answer costs from a real scan: 26.5¢ on GPT-5.5, 5.4¢ on Gemini. The engine that cost five times more scored four times lower.