Safari and adventure operators
Safari operators are ahead on preparation. It has not made them readable.
A safari booking is a considered, high-value purchase researched months ahead, often by someone who has never been to the region and has no way to judge one operator against another. That is exactly the question people now put to an AI assistant — and exactly the answer you want to appear in.
Languages measured: English, German, French.
48 safari operators, audited.
- 48
- safari operators audited
- 25%
- carry a critical fault
- 17%
- have a server refusing an AI crawler
- 44%
- publish an llms.txt
Median readiness score 67 out of 100. 4% block a crawler deliberately in robots.txt; 17% explicitly welcome AI crawlers by name. 48 safari operators audited, 8 August 2026.
The most prepared group we have measured, and it has not saved them.
44% publish an llms.txt — double the rate in educational travel — and 17% name AI crawlers explicitly in robots.txt to welcome them, against 6% elsewhere. On paper this is a sector that has thought about AI.
And yet a quarter still carry a critical fault, and 17% have a server refusing an AI crawler — four times the number who have chosen to block one. Publishing a file that invites AI in does nothing if the firewall in front of it turns them away.
Safari against educational travel
| safari | educational travel | |
|---|---|---|
| publish an llms.txt | 44% | 21% |
| explicitly welcome AI crawlers | 17% | 6% |
| server refuses a crawler | 17% | 20% |
| carry a critical fault | 25% | 27% |
Audited 8 August 2026. Safari n=48, educational travel more than 1,700.
Twice the preparation. Almost identical outcomes.
Free score. A person runs it, not a robot.
Enter your website address and we will run the technical audit on your real site — every AI crawler tested, twice. You get your score and the single biggest thing holding you back, within one week.
No account, no card.
Four out of five sites we audit have at least one fault we can name. The typical site has two or three. The free score gives you your score and the most serious one, in plain English, with the fix. The rest come with the full audit — along with the half of the picture the free score cannot see: whether AI assistants actually recommend you, and who they recommend instead.
What the full audit covers
- 60 real traveller questions, asked across 5 AI models in 3 languages.
- Every question asked three times, because AI answers are not consistent.
- Which competitors get recommended in your place, and how often.
- Which sources the models trust when answering about your region.
- Eight prioritised fixes, ranked by effort and likely impact.
- Written recommendations from me, not a dashboard export.
The five assistants we ask: ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini and Mistral. The first four search the web while they answer; Mistral answers from what it already knows. That contrast is deliberate — it separates what AI can find about you from what it remembers, and the gap between those two is usually the most useful number in the report.
We check the structured data that matters for this industry — TouristTrip, TravelAgency, LodgingBusiness — not generic markup.
Read what we can and cannot measure, and why we report the limits — our method →
Find out whether AI names your camps, or somebody else's.
Start with the free check above, or ask us a question.
The audit is $950, or $712 with an annual plan. See what’s included →