Which big sites block AI training crawlers but let AI search in
Comments on “Which big sites block AI training crawlers but let AI search in”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
A Show HN study checked robots.txt for 945 well-known websites against 14 AI crawlers as of October 2026. About 26% of the 746 readable sites block at least one crawler, and 9.2% block AI training while leaving AI search open.
Why it ranked
No. 77 of 155 with a score of 0.60. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.93) and substantiated (0.84), lowest on significance (0.52).
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Original measurement study of robots.txt AI crawler rules across 945 sites; solid methodology with stated limits, relevant to builders managing crawling and AI data access, moderate significance.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A timely, reproducible measurement of robots.txt behavior across 945 prominent sites, with methodology, limitations, crawler-level breakdowns, and downloadable data. It informs AI builders and publishers, though sampling and robots.txt’s non-enforcement limit significance.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.60total under rubric v2.2
- Significance0.52
- Reader interest0.67
- Audience breadth0.67
- Practical relevance0.66
- Substantiated0.84
- Technical depth0.59
- New information0.93
- Counts against: Promotional0.10
- Counts against: Overclaim0.28
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.53 | 0.40 | 0.62 | 0.52 | 0.22 | +0.24 | +0.124 |
| Reader interest | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.31 | +0.26 | +0.174 |
| Audience breadth | 0.72 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.67 | 0.19 | +0.13 | +0.087 |
| Practical relevance | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 0.10 | +0.22 | +0.146 |
| Substantiated | 0.95 | 0.70 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.25 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| Technical depth | 0.73 | 0.45 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.28 | +0.05 | +0.029 |
| New information | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.08 | +0.05 | +0.047 |
| Promotional | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.08 | −0.19 | −0.019 |
| Overclaim | 0.45 | 0.30 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.37 | −0.11 | −0.030 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.600 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.600 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/77/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/77.svg" alt="Ranked #77 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 2 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.