6 ms·
The article strikes me as quite uncharitable to characterize it as "a lie". I doubt this CEO just sat down and calculated he was going to write lies. While it's
by bobjordan 3mo ago
The article strikes me as quite uncharitable to characterize it as "a lie". I doubt this CEO just sat down and calculated he was going to write lies. While it's fine to call out he's wrong per his own fuller data set, it's quite a different thing than calling the person out as a "liar" in a rage-bait fashion.
- letmevoteplease 3mo agoThe author is also not very good at interpreting data himself. He claims "the AI number is padded by counting Googlebot twice" and links to [1], but there is nothing on that page that could support that assertion. It looks like he misinterpreted this part: "Googlebot crawls for both search indexing and AI training and is included as a separate entry due to its crawl volume" (Googlebot was NOT included in the "AI bot" count, so it was not counted twice.) [1] https://radar.cloudflare.com/year-in-review/2025 https://radar.cloudflare.com/year-in-review/2025