Does search intent still matter when AI does the searching?

Search intent is the job a search is trying to get done. AI answers didn't retire it. They run searches of their own before they cite anything, which Bing calls grounding queries, and since June 2026, Bing's AI Performance report puts an intent label on each of those searches. That means I can see the intent behind a citation, not only the citation.

What is a grounding query?

A grounding query is a search an AI answer runs to find its sources. Microsoft's definition, from the launch of the AI Performance report on February 10, 2026: grounding queries show “the key phrases the AI used when retrieving content that was referenced in AI-generated answers”. The report covers Copilot, Bing's AI summaries and select partner sites.

So a person asks, and the AI writes the search. On WireRef, my electrical reference site, one of those searches reads “what size wire for 50 amps”, and Bing counted 488 citations of WireRef for it from Apr 13 to Oct 11, 2026.

On June 16, 2026, Bing added intents: grounding queries are now sorted into “broader categories such as Informational, Commercial, Navigational, Learn and Solve, Research, Creation, Local, and more”. On my sites it used 11 of them. My search intent guide uses the classic four: informational, navigational, commercial and transactional.

Does search intent still apply when AI does the searching?

Yes, and Google says so from its side. Its guide to optimizing for generative AI search, updated July 10, 2026, describes query fan-out, its name for the searches an AI answer runs (what Bing calls grounding queries), as “a set of concurrent, related queries generated by the model to request more information”, and says optimizing for generative AI search is “still SEO”.

A fan-out search has a job to do like any other search. The difference is who wrote it. So the first question about a page is still the old one: what is the search behind it trying to get done, and does the page do that job?

Which intents do AI answers search for on my sites?

It depends on who the site serves. Find the row closest to your own site.

Both sports sites lead with Live Event, while an independent fan reference, a fan site about books, leads with Informational. WireRef, GageRef and RatingPlate lead with Informational. CheckMyTap leads with Informational at 32%, with Research at 31%; UpOrbit leads with Commercial at 40%, with Informational at 30%.

Bing Webmaster Tools, AI Performance, grounding-query exports for eight of my public sites, Apr 13 to Oct 11, 2026. A share is of that site's searches in the export. The full count, label by label, is at the end of this post.

Why do sports sites get live-event searches?

Because their answers change by the week. On Title Town PDX, 42 of its 68 AI searches carry Bing's Live Event label (62%), and they drew 89% of its citations in the export. On The Quack Report it's 58 of 113 (51%).

They are rosters, schedules and kickoff times: “portland fire wnba roster 2026”, “cascade softball schedule”, “oregon vs oklahoma state kickoff time”. Each of those answers can change between one game and the next.

So the pages have to change just as often. On Title Town PDX, a script posts new results twice a day, on a schedule set in the site's code (checked Oct 13, 2026). The Title Town PDX case study shows what that script does.

Does Bing's label match mine?

My search intent guide sorts a search by its words. Here are its rules run over all 1.8K searches, with Bing's labels beside them. They are simple word checks, not a full classifier: they match only 342 different searches (19%), a search can match more than one, and the other 1.5K contain none of their trigger words. A search that matches no rule may still carry a Bing label. The comparison below covers only the matched searches.

Where my rule says Commercial, Bing mostly says Comparison: 80 of 123. Where my rule says Informational, Bing splits it, and 112 of 219 are Learn and Solve, the how-to kind.

My rule has a miss, and it's the word "vs" on a sports site. Of the searches it calls Commercial, 11 carry Bing's Live Event label, all of them on The Quack Report, and each one is a game. “ucla vs oregon on cbs” is a question about a TV channel, and Bing has it right.

Bing's labels miss too. It labels “dante moore injury update” Live Event and “dante moore injury report” Informational, two phrasings of one question. Bing also files each search under a topic, and its topic labels filed “portland fire home schedule” under Public Safety & Emergency Services; the Portland Fire is a WNBA team.

Bing says as much. Its intents and topics come from “evolving AI/ML classification systems” (June 16, 2026), and its newest view warns that “a query may land in a topic you would have labelled differently” (October 13, 2026).

Even a correct label doesn't tell you what the page should do. Before writing a page, I put together a short page brief that keeps what the data shows separate from my guess about why the person searched.

Should you build a page for every AI search?

No. Google's guide is plain about it: creating “separate content for every possible variation of how people might search (for example, by focusing on other queries that people have asked, or fan-out queries)” to manipulate rankings or AI responses “violates Google's scaled content abuse spam policy”.

My own rule is older than AI answers: every URL should justify being there. On an independently owned fan reference, I checked before building a separate seasonal page. The existing guide already drew 99.9% of the relevant search impressions, so the seasonal angle went inside that guide instead of onto a page of its own (Google Search Console, query and page data, Sep 1 to Oct 2, 2026). I keep the guide's subject private, but the share is measured, not estimated.

Which intent never shows up?

Navigational: 0 of 1.8K. Bing's list of intents includes it, and not one search behind a citation of my sites carries it. Only one of those searches contains one of my sites' names, and Bing didn't call that one Navigational either.

That holds only for this sample, the searches behind citations of my sites; it says nothing about how people who already know a site reach it. Google says its AI features “show links front and center when you're looking to go to a particular site” (October 15, 2026), and my post on navigational search intent covers what those searches need from a page.

What can't grounding queries tell you?

• It's a sample. The exports hold 166K of the 619K citations Bing counted for these sites over the same days, 27%. Microsoft calls it “a sample of overall citation activity”.
• It's Bing only. It covers Copilot, Bing's AI summaries and select partner sites. It says nothing about ChatGPT or Google's AI Mode.
• It counts citations, not visits. A citation means an answer used the page; it doesn't mean anyone clicked.
• It doesn't join a search to a page. The search export and the page export are separate reports.
• It leaves some of my sites out. This post reads eight of my sites, the ones whose exports hold enough searches to read.
• Bing's labels are still in preview. 63 of the 1.8K searches carry no label at all.

To practise interpreting these reports, compare Google AI impressions, Bing citations and measured referral sessions. The lesson uses WireRef and The Quack Report to separate visibility claims from visits before deciding what to change.

First published October 17, 2026.