Bing’s Topics Portfolio is useful when you treat an opportunity query as the start of an investigation, then decide which page deserves work. Open the relevant topic, check the question against your audience and existing content, and choose a specific improvement you can support with evidence.
The beta, announced by Microsoft on October 13, 2026, adds topic context to Bing Webmaster Tools’ AI Performance report. Its estimates can help you organize a content review. They do not tell you how many visitors a new article will receive.
The valuable outcome is a defensible decision: improve this page, investigate this technical issue, create something genuinely missing, or leave an irrelevant suggestion alone. A longer publishing queue is not automatically a better result.
What Bing’s Topics Portfolio adds
AI Performance already lets publishers examine citations. Topics Portfolio helps turn that activity into a review of broader subjects and potential gaps.
This is an extension of an existing reporting system. Microsoft’s June AI visibility update introduced Topics alongside Intents, Citation Share, and Compare. The October portfolio adds ecosystem context and related queries where other sites appear without yours.
That distinction changes the question you ask. Instead of only asking which pages received attention, you can ask which nearby questions deserve a closer look. It does not establish why your page was absent.
| Review question | Useful next step |
|---|---|
| Where does our existing content contribute? | Inspect the cited pages and preserve the useful material. |
| Which related questions might we be missing? | Compare the opportunity with your page inventory. |
| Does the question belong to our audience? | Check customer needs before assigning content work. |
| Is creating another page justified? | Identify a distinct purpose that an existing page cannot reasonably serve. |
Grounding queries are not customer prompts
In the original AI Performance documentation announcement, Microsoft describes grounding queries as phrases used to retrieve supporting material. The report samples citation activity across Microsoft Copilot, Bing’s AI summaries, and selected partner integrations.
A retrieval phrase can therefore differ from the full question a person asked. Do not copy it into a headline without interpreting the underlying need.
For example, an illustrative phrase such as “shared inbox collision detection” might point to a question about preventing two support agents from replying to the same customer. A useful page should explain that problem, the mechanism, and its limits. Repeating the short phrase in several headings would not resolve the reader’s problem.
Keep this narrower report context in mind when evaluating AI visibility gaps. A gap in one reporting system is a lead to investigate, rather than proof of absence across every AI assistant.
Open Topics Portfolio and read the report
Start in Bing Webmaster Tools with the website you intend to review.
- Open AI Performance.
- Look for Topics Portfolio beside Citations & Pages. Microsoft also calls it Topics in its getting-started instructions.
- Choose an available one-, two-, or three-month window.
- Open a relevant topic and compare Your Grounding Queries with Opportunity Queries.
Availability depends on sufficient data. If the view is absent, use the missing-data checks below instead of assuming you have found an access-setting error.
Read the columns before the opportunities
These are Microsoft’s launch definitions, condensed into a reference table.
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Topic | A group of related grounding queries. |
| Topic Size | Approximate citations across all sites in that topic during the selected period. |
| Sites Cited | Approximate number of sites appearing for queries in the topic. |
| Queries | Approximate number of distinct grounding queries. |
The portfolio-wide Top Opportunity Queries and the individual topic’s Opportunity Queries identify queries where other sites appear without yours. Opportunity citation counts are presented as ranges.
Those definitions matter more than the relative size of the numbers. Topic Size is not a keyword’s monthly Google search volume. Sites Cited is not a keyword-difficulty score. Queries counts distinct retrieval phrases rather than potential customers.
Before making a shortlist, write down the site and reporting dates. Keep the displayed range in its original form. Replacing a range with its midpoint makes a later spreadsheet look more precise without adding evidence.
For a first review, choose a topic your business already understands. Read a small handful of queries before comparing the whole portfolio. You should be able to explain what a customer would learn from an improved page and why your business can supply that answer.
A large topic that sits outside your offer can create more editorial work than value. A smaller relevant subject can be more useful when it connects to a clear customer decision and a credible contribution from your team.
Choose opportunities worth investigating
An opportunity query does not automatically belong in your content calendar. Apply a relevance check before considering its apparent scale.
First, translate the query into a person’s task. What are they trying to understand, choose, or fix? Then ask whether your business can answer that task honestly. A subject can sit near your category while still requiring expertise, products, or evidence you do not have.
Next, look for the page that already owns the question. Search your published content, product documentation, drafts, and scheduled posts. Include pages with different wording that answer the same underlying need.
Use the following editorial decisions rather than treating every gap as a request for a new URL.
| What you find | Sensible decision | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|
| A relevant page answers the question incompletely | Update that page | The missing explanation and the section where it belongs |
| A useful page exists, but access or presentation is questionable | Investigate before rewriting | The exact URL, its public response, and the content a visitor can read |
| No page serves a genuinely distinct customer task | Consider a new page | A clear purpose, supporting evidence, and a place in the site structure |
| The query concerns an unrelated offer or expertise | Skip it | A short reason that prevents repeated reconsideration |
| The query names another brand | Assess the actual intent | Whether a fair comparison serves your audience |
Avoid deciding from a topic label alone. Read the specific query and the relevant content. A label such as “customer service” could contain questions about software, staffing, training, or legal obligations. Those call for different publishers and different pages.
When several queries point to the same task, group them into one brief. A comparison between shared inboxes and ticketing systems does not need separate pages for every slight wording variation.
The best shortlist explains why each item deserves attention. “It appeared in the report” is weak justification. “Our comparison page omits the assignment workflow buyers ask about, and we can demonstrate it accurately” gives an editor a concrete job.
If you cannot name the missing reader benefit, hold the item for research. There is no need to invent a priority score to make an uncertain opportunity appear ready.
A worked example: from query to page decision
Consider a hypothetical company that sells shared-inbox software to small support teams. It has a comparison page at /guides/shared-inbox-vs-ticketing/ and a product guide covering agent assignment.
The following queries and decisions are illustrative. They are not observations from a Bing account, and no citation volumes or traffic results are implied.
| Illustrative opportunity | What the team discovers | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Shared inbox versus ticketing system for five agents | An existing comparison explains features but omits ownership and handoff scenarios | Update the comparison |
| How to prevent duplicate support replies | The assignment guide explains the controls, but readers cannot easily find that explanation | Improve navigation to the relevant section and check whether its answer is clear |
| RivalDesk login | A navigational query for an unrelated competing product | Skip |
| How to staff a 24-hour call center | The company has neither relevant staffing expertise nor evidence | Exclude from this review |
| Export customer conversations before switching tools | A real buyer task, but product capability has not been confirmed | Ask the product owner before planning content |
The first query is the best immediate candidate in this example. It fits a real buying decision, has an existing destination, and reveals a specific omission the company can address.
The team should then read the whole comparison page. Perhaps it already contains the answer under an unexpected heading. Perhaps an old draft covers the same issue. A quick title search would miss both situations.
If the gap is real, the edit could show how two teams handle the same incoming message. In a shared-inbox workflow, explain who owns the reply, how another agent sees that ownership, and what happens during a handoff. In a ticketing workflow, explain the corresponding assignment and status behavior. Describe limitations honestly rather than assuming every product in either category behaves identically.
The useful addition is the decision a buyer can now make. A five-agent team may care about visible ownership and escalation more than a long inventory of interface features.
The report supplied a reason to investigate. The company’s own knowledge supplies the explanation. Neither step proves that Bing will cite the revised page.
The export query also matters, even though it was not selected. Keeping it marked “capability unconfirmed” is better than publishing an inaccurate migration promise. A good review produces deliberate exclusions alongside approved work.
Turn the selected query into a useful page brief
Once the page decision is made, write a brief that describes the missing answer. Do not give a writer only the query and an instruction to make the article longer.
For the hypothetical shared-inbox example, a workable brief looks like this:
| Brief field | Filled example |
|---|---|
| Reader | Support lead choosing a workflow for a five-agent team |
| Decision to support | Whether inbox-based collaboration or ticket-based assignment fits the team’s handoffs |
| Destination | Existing shared-inbox versus ticketing comparison |
| Missing answer | What happens when two people open the same message or an agent goes off shift |
| Evidence needed | Verified product behavior, current documentation, and an example the product owner can confirm |
| Planned addition | A short side-by-side workflow and a paragraph explaining exceptions |
| What stays out | A broad history of customer service and unsupported claims about every competing tool |
| Acceptance check | A reader can identify who owns a conversation, how ownership changes, and where the approach stops fitting |
This brief is an editorial tool, not a template generated by Bing. It converts a report signal into a specific change someone can review.
Check the revised page against the original question
Read the page as a visitor who has not seen the report. Can they find the answer without guessing which heading hides it? Does the explanation distinguish a documented capability from a recommendation? Can they follow a useful next step?
If a screenshot would settle an interface question, use a current, permission-cleared capture and explain what it demonstrates. A decorative image cannot substitute for a missing workflow. Avoid displaying customer conversations or private account details.
Keep the page’s established purpose intact. A comparison page should help readers compare; it should not become several loosely connected tutorials because the topic contains many opportunity queries.
When the research genuinely supports a separate page, document the difference in intent and link it from the relevant existing guide. Do not create a second comparison simply to place another phrase in its title.
Finally, identify the owner and review date. The person checking product accuracy need not be the person editing prose. Mark the change ready only when its important claims can be supported. That makes the brief useful even if future citation activity remains unchanged.
Measure progress without confusing citations and traffic
A useful page improvement and a favorable report movement are different observations. Record both without claiming that one necessarily caused the other.
Microsoft’s June announcement describes Citation Share as a query-level observational measure. It is not traffic share, a ranking score, or a way to reveal competitor domains. That is a useful boundary for interpreting the wider AI Performance reporting system too.
Keep three questions separate:
| Question | Evidence to review | What it cannot establish alone |
|---|---|---|
| Is our content being cited in the supported AI reporting surfaces? | Bing citation activity for a defined period | Visits or sales |
| Are people arriving at the relevant pages? | Available referral and landing-page analytics | Every earlier AI exposure |
| Are those visits useful to the business? | Relevant enquiries, signups, purchases, or another defined outcome | That one content edit caused the change |
Do not divide a topic’s estimated citations by your analytics visits and call the result a conversion rate. The two measures do not necessarily describe the same population or journey.
Keep the reporting context stable
Create your own review record with these fields: site, topic, query, displayed period, displayed citation range, related page, action, edit date, and next review date. Preserve the original observation before adding an interpretation.
At the next review, use comparable windows and note important changes to the business or website. A seasonal change in customer interest, a product launch, or a reporting change can complicate the comparison. Longer windows overlap, so consecutive snapshots are not always independent observations.
A responsible note might read: “The comparison page now explains ownership and shift handoffs. Later reporting shows citation activity on a related query. Referral visits and qualified trials are being reviewed separately; attribution to the edit is unproven.” This is an illustrative reporting note, not a result from the example company.
For a second line of investigation, Screpy AI Visibility can retain answers and cited sources for deliberately selected prompts and market settings. Keep that sample separate from Bing’s first-party reporting. There is no assumption that a prompt recreates the original user question behind a grounding query or that the two systems should show matching counts.
Use the evidence to decide whether the next action should be another focused edit, a technical check, or simply continued observation.
Why Topics Portfolio may be missing or misleading
Microsoft warns that limited site presence or topic activity can hide parts of the beta. Labels can be imperfect, branded queries can appear as opportunities, and values remain approximate.
A blank view is therefore not evidence of zero AI visibility, a penalty, or a particular technical failure.
| Situation | What to check | What to avoid concluding |
|---|---|---|
| The portfolio tab is unavailable | Confirm the selected website and AI Performance view; record that the feature is unavailable | That buying a tool or publishing a fixed number of posts will unlock it |
| A topic seems unrelated | Read its actual queries and compare them with your audience | That the label defines your site’s expertise |
| A query names another business | Determine whether it is navigational or a useful, fair comparison | That every missing brand query deserves a page |
| A displayed estimate changes | Retain both periods and the original ranges | That a small movement proves a precise gain or loss |
Use the report’s feedback controls for poor classifications or irrelevant suggestions. Keep your own decision notes as well: feedback to a product team and an internal content decision serve different purposes.
If the report is not available, leave that result visible in your review. Other evidence can support other questions, but it cannot manufacture the missing portfolio data.
For an eligible site, finish the first session with one selected query, one destination page, a defined reader benefit, and an owner. That is enough to turn Topics Portfolio into useful work while preserving the uncertainty in its measurements.