Which Content curation is readiest for AI agents?

2 measured, averaging 10.0% against 19.9% for the web overall. Systems that organize content from multiple sources

Best first

How to read these figures

The colour says what a bar IS, not how it scores: the accent is the one this page is about, grey is everything it is compared with, and the hollow bar is the web overall — the ruler, not a rival. Whether a figure is above or below the rest of the web is in the number and in the arrow beside it.

Every figure here comes from a sample, not from counting every site — so it carries a margin: how much it could move if we had happened to sample different pages. A figure measured on a thousand pages has a wide margin; one measured on a hundred thousand has a narrow one. It matters for one thing: two figures that differ by less than the wider of their margins are not one above the other, they are tied. That is why nothing here has a position number.

Technology	AWCS	Month by month
Tagembed Tagembed Sample n=4 Coverage 100.0% Margin ±26.50 The web overall 19.9% Two figures closer together than ±26.50 are tied, not ranked.	20.0%	= −33.3
Photoslurp Photoslurp Sample n=1 Coverage 100.0% Margin ±53.00 The web overall 19.9% Two figures closer together than ±53.00 are tied, not ranked.	0.0%	—

This figure describes the sites, not the technology

These are the indices of the sites where each of these was detected. Swapping one for another does not change a site’s markup, so the number says more about who uses it than about what it does. Read it as a portrait of their customers.

From Omitsis, who publish this census

Where content curation lose points

We know which of these four dimensions each of them fails, and in what order to fix it.

Leave it to us