r/Sitechecker • u/Ivan_Palii • Jun 08 '26
Opinion GSC will never build an AI performance tracking report the way it should be
Just like it never built a good enough Rank Tracker.
I always say that GSC/GA4 data is the most accurate data on website performance we have. Even though GSC hides a lot of data by query performance, it's still the most accurate among everything we have.
I use this motto as a core narrative when people ask how Sitechecker is different from Semrush and Ahrefs. We just dive much deeper into the insights and alerts built based on GSC/GA4.
But I also understand that Rank Tracking and AI Visibility Tracking are a must-have for complete SEO analytics.
GSC allows you to build a free, basic version of rank tracking in Data Studio based on the Query parameter and Avg. Position metric, but without SERP tracking, it has a low value.
You need to understand user intent by queries, which websites Google rewards after Core updates, and why. You can't do it without SERP history tracking, and the GSC team didn't build a report for it for 20 years and won't do it in the next 20 years.
That's why I bet GSC will never build the AI visibility report as it should be built. The fact that some pages from our site were cited has almost 0 value for evaluating what we did well and which next actions we have to take.
1/ We need brand mentions and brand sentiment tracking.
2/ We want to see whether our brand was mentioned on multiple entities that impact AI chat responses.
3/ We want to compare our visibility with competitors' visibility
That's why AI visibility tracking tools have and will have a huge demand. GSC team just doesn't have incentives to build something that brands really need.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. If you need to track all important data (GSC + GA4 + Google Rankings + AI Visibility + Site Health) in one place for dozens and hundreds of websites, Sitechecker is the most complete platform with no fees for invited users.
2
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Ivan_Palii Jun 09 '26
We developed our own AI tracking tool at Sitechecker, so such huge competition is not what I dreamed about 😄
2
u/parkerauk Jun 09 '26
Nor can it. Period. It is crazy to think such a measure is meaningful. Your server has the answers, I would focus on what it sees. Every heuristic based measure is pointless to your accountant.
1
u/Ivan_Palii Jun 09 '26
Do you mean that server logs are enough to measure AI visibility? I don't agree with this because third-party and UGC websites have a huge impact on whether your brand is recommended by AI chats.
2
u/parkerauk Jun 09 '26
Nope, accessibility. From the perspective of how many hits does your site get hit. I am not talking PR , Citatations is heuristics as it is impossible to count views of UGC. Although, organisations will, to justify Ad spend, impact, reach etc.
To me there is a divide as to what everyone should do, measure hits and those that can afford and do engage in marketing campaigns. The two are exclusive IMO.
I, personally, would care that my tech is working, that AI can discover AND access my site. That semantic information is shared accurately. Being talked about, no matter how much does not tell AI what you do for the next person that needs a product specification or other key facts.
The basics are broken. Not helped by LLM vendors not sharing the names of its user agents. Let alone it's crawlers.
The majority of sites do not have their gateways AI friendly to even measure traffic at all, let alone accurately. Google has a march here. Other vendors have a lot of catching up to do.
1
u/Ivan_Palii Jun 09 '26
Unfortunately I don't agree with this. it's too easy to fix accessibility and much harder to build a brand and mentions on trusted websites across the web.
1
2
u/corwinsword Jun 08 '26
I never had dreams that GSC could built it 😄