Google Confirms LLMs.Txt Comparable To Keywords Meta Tag for SEO Insights

Google’s John Mueller provided a pragmatic evaluation of LLMs.txt, likening its utility to the outdated keywords meta tag.

Google Confirms LLMs.Txt Comparable To Keywords Meta Tag for SEO Insights

John Mueller from Google addressed a query regarding LLMs.txt, a suggested framework designed to present website content to AI agents. These crawlers, minimizing its effectiveness by comparing it to the obsolete keywords meta tag, thus validating others’ experiences with it.

LLMs.Txt Contrary to popular belief, LLMs.txt is not akin to Robots.txt for large language models. The primary function of robots.txt is to manage how bots navigate a site. Conversely, the concept behind LLMs.txt does not involve controlling bots—this would be redundant since robots.txt already serves this purpose.

The essence of LLMs.txt lies in presenting content to large language models via a text file formatted in markdown, allowing them to access the core content of a webpage without the interference of advertisements or navigation elements. Markdown is both human and machine-readable, using symbols like the pound sign (#) for headings and the minus sign (-) for lists. LLMs.txt performs similar functions and is exclusively about that.

What LLMs.txt Represents:

• LLMs.txt isn’t a mechanism to control AI bots.
• LLMs.txt aims to display main content to AI bots.
• LLMs.txt remains merely a proposal and lacks widespread adoption as an accepted standard.

This latter point is crucial because it aligns with what Google’s John Mueller stated:

LLMs.Txt Comparable To Keywords Meta Tag A Reddit discussion emerged concerning LLMs.txt, questioning whether others noticed AI bots ignoring their LLMs.txt files.

One participant commented:

“I added an LLM.txt file to my blog’s root earlier this month but haven’t observed any changes in my crawl logs. I’m curious if anyone else has tracking systems in place or has noticed any activity following implementation. If you haven’t implemented it yet, I’d love to hear your thoughts.”

Another user, managing over 20,000 domains, noted that no mainstream AI agents or bots are accessing LLMs.txt files, except for niche bots like BuiltWith.

They said:

“Currently overseeing about 20k domains. It’s clear that no significant bots are retrieving these files apart from some specialized user agents…”

John Mueller responded:

“To my knowledge, none of the AI services have declared they’re utilizing LLMs.TXT (and examining server logs confirms they aren’t checking for it). To me, it resembles the keywords meta tag – indicating what a site owner claims their site is about … (Is the site genuinely reflective of that? Well, verification is possible. So why not directly inspect the site?)”

He’s correct; major AI services such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google have not endorsed the proposed LLMs.txt standard. Therefore, if none are employing it, what’s the rationale?

Mueller also highlighted the redundancy of an LLMs.txt file, questioning its necessity when original content (and structured data) has already been fetched. A bot leveraging LLMs.txt would still need to review other content to ensure it’s legitimate, so why add another step?

Moreover, what prevents a publisher or SEO from displaying one version of content in LLMs.txt to deceive AI agents while presenting different content to users and search engines? This approach could easily generate spam, effectively cloaking information meant for large language models.

In this sense, it mirrors the keywords meta tag, which search engines disregard due to potential misuse. Today’s search engines are far more advanced and adept at analyzing content to determine its relevance.

LinkedIn Post Sheds Light on LLMs.Txt Limitations

Simone De Palma, who started a Reddit thread, posted on LinkedIn about his experience with txt files designed for Large Language Models (LLMs). He argued that these files provide little value and could harm user experience.

De Palma wrote:

“LLMs.txt files seem ignored by #AI services, offering no tangible benefit to website owners. Some also point out that these files might lead to poor user experiences by not linking to original URLs. Citations could direct users to a wall of text rather than proper web pages—what’s the point?”

Others agreed, with one commenter noting minimal traffic to the file and suggesting better focus areas. They shared:

“I agree. My tests show few visits and no benefits yet. It could have potential if used differently, but it risks confusing crawlers. I’m only testing it on my site for more data. For now, prioritizing structured data, robots.txt, and sitemaps is more productive for SEO.”

LLMs.Txt Offers Little for SEO

For SEO experts and developers, LLMs.txt files lack impact as a ranking signal. Major search engines like Google show no adoption, and risks like cloaking or crawler confusion outweigh benefits. Efforts are better directed toward proven indexing tactics, such as optimizing structured data and robots.txt, to boost visibility and user experience.

John Mueller Compares LLMs.Txt to Keywords Meta Tag
Google’s John Mueller weighed in on a Reddit discussion about LLMs.txt files, downplaying their utility by likening them to the outdated keywords meta tag. His comments mirrored user feedback on their ineffectiveness.

John Mueller said:

“As far as I know, no major AI services use LLMs.TXT. Server logs show they don’t even check it. It’s like the keywords meta tag—a site owner’s claim about their content. Why trust it when you can verify the site directly?”

Leading AI providers, including Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, haven’t endorsed LLMs.txt files, reducing their relevance.

LLMs.Txt and Keywords Meta Tag Parallel

A Reddit user asked if others noticed AI bots ignoring their LLMs.txt files, stating:

“This month, I added an LLM.txt file to my blog’s root, but crawl logs show no activity. Has anyone tracked this or seen changes after implementation? If not, what’s your take?”

A respondent managing 20,000 domains noted that only niche bots, like BuiltWith’s, accessed their LLMs.txt files, with major AI agents showing no interest.

John Mueller’s point about redundancy holds: bots already access original content and structured data, making markdown files unnecessary. Additionally, LLMs.txt files could enable spam, as SEO practitioners might show one content version to AI and another to users or search engines, similar to past keywords meta tag misuse. Modern search engines bypass such meta tags, using advanced parsing for indexing.

Defining LLMs.Txt

Often confused with Robots.txt for Large Language Models (LLMs), LLMs.txt files don’t control bot behavior—Robots.txt already does. Instead, they’re a proposed markdown-based format to present core content to LLMs, free of ads or navigation. Markdown uses symbols like # for headings and – for lists, readable by humans and machines. Yet, LLMs.txt files remain a non-standardized proposal with limited adoption.