How Do You Turn Bing’s Grounding Queries and Citation Share Into an Editorial Decision?

Use Bing Webmaster Tools grounding queries, intents, topics, cited pages and Citation Share to decide what to protect, improve, consolidate or investigate.

Documented fact: Microsoft describes grounding queries as sampled retrieval phrases and Citation Share as the percentage of citations attributed to a site among citations shown for the same grounding query; it explicitly says the metric is observational, not a ranking system.

CDM inference: The Citation Opportunity Matrix and action rules are CDM’s editorial method, not Microsoft guidance.

Read each Bing metric for the question it can answer

Microsoft’s initial Bing AI Performance announcement describes total citations, average cited pages, grounding queries, page-level citation activity and trends. It says grounding queries are key phrases used to retrieve content that was referenced, and that the displayed data is a sample of overall citation activity.

A June 2026 update added Intents, Topics, Citation Share and period comparison. Microsoft defines Citation Share as the percentage of citations attributed to a site out of all citations shown across sites for the same grounding query. It says the metric is observational, not a ranking, traffic share, competitor disclosure or content-quality score.

Treat Intents and Topics as evolving classifications. Microsoft notes that labels may be broad during preview. A classification is evidence about the reporting system’s grouping, not a permanent definition of the audience’s need.

Build the Bing Citation Opportunity Matrix

Normalise only enough to analyse. Preserve the original query text and Bing labels. A separate editorial column can map synonymous questions to a shared decision. Do not overwrite source data with a keyword cluster.

Add a relevance score based on the reader decision and CDM’s authority scope, not citation volume alone. A small number of citations for a high-value technical question may deserve more attention than a large number for an adjacent topic that CDM should not own.

Inspect the cited page. Does it answer the query directly? Is the relevant evidence current and close to the claim? Does the canonical point to the correct version? Can readers continue to a useful action? This is a page-quality review, not an attempt to reverse-engineer an undocumented selection formula.

Choose one editorial action

Protect

Use when a strategically important page is repeatedly cited and remains accurate. Assign a freshness owner, preserve the URL and strengthen primary evidence or navigation without unnecessary rewrites.

Deepen

Use when the page is relevant but lacks a decision tool, method, limitation or current evidence. Add information gain, not extra synonyms.

Consolidate

Use when several CDM pages serve the same intent and fragment the evidence. Compare query-page patterns and reader purpose before merging; redirects and internal links need technical review.

Repair

Use when a page contains stale claims, conflicting facts, weak canonicalisation or an inaccessible evidence asset. Accuracy and retrieval clarity come before promotional optimisation.

Monitor

Use when data volume is small, labels are unstable or the topic is strategically peripheral. A deliberate no-change decision is better than reacting to every fluctuation.

Compare periods without manufacturing causality

Bing’s Compare feature can show how citation patterns changed between periods. Annotate major content, technical, market and product events, but do not call the nearest annotation the cause. Microsoft says citation patterns can shift because of user behaviour, model evolution, freshness, partner cycles and changes across the web.

Use equivalent windows and note data completeness. Review absolute counts alongside Citation Share. Share can rise while total citation activity falls, or fall while the site gains citations in an expanding pool. Each pattern leads to a different question.

Preserve page-level and query-level denominators. A topic aggregate can hide that one page dominates or that labels changed. Where volume permits, require persistence across more than one period before a structural change.

Run a monthly editorial-decision workflow

1. Export or record the report with filters and definitions.
2. Validate property, period and data completeness.
3. Map grounding queries to topics and customer decisions without altering raw text.
4. Join cited pages to editorial owner, last review and canonical status.
5. Score strategic relevance and evidence quality.
6. Assign one action and a decision rationale.
7. Measure the expected page and business sequence separately.

Pair Bing data with Search Console, analytics, customer research and commercial evidence. Bing explains one provider’s observed citation activity. It cannot serve as a universal AI-visibility census.

Limits and risks

The cited features were launched in preview and depend on evolving classification and aggregated signals. Grounding-query data is sampled. The report does not disclose competitor domains or every answer context.

Do not create thin pages for each phrase. Consolidate evidence around meaningful reader decisions and preserve a clear canonical architecture.

CDM verdict

Bing gives publishers unusually useful first-party context, but the correct unit of action is still an editorial decision, not a score. Connect query, intent, topic, page and evidence; respect the observational limits of Citation Share; and improve only where the reader and the publication gain something real.

Related guides

• How Do You Read Google’s Generative AI Performance Report Without Inventing an AI Ranking?
• How Do You Keep Brand Facts Consistent Across Languages for AI Retrieval?

Frequently asked questions