AnswerShare routes people and search crawlers to the canonical human page, and AI-inference crawlers to an optimized machine layer carrying the same facts. This page walks the routing mechanism and the published anti-cloaking policy language it has to satisfy — across Google, Bing, Yandex, and every AI-crawler publisher reviewed. Measured and documented, not asserted.
AnswerShare’s architecture and delivery do not violate Google Search — or any other search engine’s — cloaking policies.
We Speak AI. And We Can Prove It.
Routing is a two-stage, IP/ASN-verified gate — not a user-agent guess. And the policy question it answers is narrower than it looks: Google’s spam policies govern participation in Google Search. They don’t make Google the general-purpose authority over what representation a publisher gives an independent AI-inference system like OpenAI, Anthropic, or Perplexity.
Source in this repository: functions/[[path]].js:370–379 (bot classification — Googlebot/Bingbot/SEO crawlers excluded from the AI-bot set) and :866–894 (the IP/ASN-gated routing decision itself).
“Different content to users and search engines with the intent to manipulate search rankings and mislead users.”
Google also says similar dynamic rendering is not cloaking: “As long as your dynamic rendering produces similar content, Googlebot won’t view dynamic rendering as cloaking.”
developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies · developers.google.com/.../dynamic-rendering
“Showing us one piece of content and other visitors a different piece of content is misleading.”
Bing expressly permits bot-specific server rendering when the content stays the same: “acceptable and not considered cloaking.”
blogs.bing.com/.../Things-you-should-avoid · .../october-2018/...Cloaking-Oh-My
Yandex’s definition is structurally identical, with an explicit carve-out: “the layout of the page differs… while the content remains consistent” is not cloaking — the same adaptive-rendering exception Google and Bing recognize. Across every crawler policy reviewed, the recurring boundary is material content inconsistency used to manipulate indexing or ranking. None makes machine-oriented delivery, by itself, the violation.
Publishes crawler purpose, robots.txt controls, access guidance, and noindex behavior — and confirms each bot's setting is independent, so a site can allow OAI-SearchBot for search while disallowing GPTBot for training. No published definition says a machine representation is cloaking.
Publishes purpose, robots.txt behavior, and anti-circumvention commitments across three separately-controllable bots. No published machine-format cloaking definition.
Publishes crawler purpose, robots.txt controls, and published IP ranges. No published machine-format cloaking definition.
help.openai.com/en/articles/12627856 · support.anthropic.com/en/articles/8896518 · docs.perplexity.ai/docs/resources/perplexity-crawlers
Googlebot and other search crawlers continue to receive the canonical human publication.
The AI machine layer preserves the same facts while reducing retrieval noise.
Every claim ships with its verifiable source in the body of the page — not a lookup an AI system has to perform on its own.
AnswerShare separates Search delivery from AI retrieval, preserving the same facts on both sides. Not a workaround: the industry’s own pattern — bot-specific, content-preserving delivery — applied consistently and documented, not asserted.
We Speak AI. And We Can Prove It.
Sources 01–09 are external primary sources, fetched live and confirmed before this page was assembled. Source 10 is internal (this repository). xAI/Grok: no official crawler documentation could be located at any candidate URL — deliberately excluded rather than cited unverified.
Related: AnswerShare home · Transparency · FAQ