jingproject.com 73 B
🛡️ SEO 75 🤖 GEO 84 ⚡ Perf 47 🏗️ Arch 75
Radar → Domains → jingproject.com

jingproject.com — Global SEODiff Score 73/100

jingproject.com
📊

jingproject.com achieves a 79/100 on the AI-Crawler Reality Index, reflecting above-average readiness for AI-driven discovery. Compared to other social sites (avg score: 57), jingproject.com performs above the benchmark, suggesting strong competitive positioning in AI search. Content is delivered server-side, meaning bots and AI agents can parse the full page without executing JavaScript. The token bloat ratio sits at a lean 3.9×, meaning the ratio of code to visible content is efficient — crawlers spend their token budget on actual information. The site includes 3 schema blocks, providing adequate structured data for basic entity recognition. All major AI bot user-agents (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, CCBot, Google-Extended) are permitted by robots.txt, ensuring broad AI crawler access.

73
B — Global SEODiff Score
Comprehensive search visibility assessment
Strong foundations, but Performance (47) is your bottleneck.
🎯 Top Fix: Monitor weekly to catch regressions early
75
🛡️ Traditional SEO
84
🤖 AI Readiness
47
⚡ Performance
75
🏗️ Architecture
🔬 Automated SEODiff Assessment · Snapshot: Feb 25, 2026 · 📋 API
Does your site score higher than jingproject.com?
Run the same 40-signal audit on your own domain — free, instant results.
Scan Your Site Free →
🧮 Score Transparency — How is this calculated?
🛡️ Traditional SEO (25% weight)75 × 0.25 = 18.8
🤖 AI Readiness / GEO (40% weight)84 × 0.40 = 33.6
⚡ Performance (20% weight)47 × 0.20 = 9.4
🏗️ Architecture & Trust (15% weight)75 × 0.15 = 11.2
Weighted sum = 18.8 + 33.6 + 9.4 + 11.2
Global SEODiff Score = 73 (B)
📊 ACRI Sub-Scores (AI Readiness Detail)
100
Bot Access
avg 92
100
Rendering
avg 93
45
Structure
avg 35
46
Schema
avg 10
85
Tech Stack
avg 64
🔀
Visibility Delta: Google vs AI
Google (Tranco)
Top 50%+
Rank #572212
-48 pts
Gap
AI (ACRI)
Top 9%
Score 79/100

jingproject.com ranks much higher on Google (Tranco Top 50%+) than in AI search (Top 9%). This is the 'Invisible Giant' pattern — implement the patches above to close the AI gap. ACRI measures technical crawler readiness. Read the methodology →

Why jingproject.com ranks here

Tech stackWordPress
Industrysocial
RenderingSSR
Schema coverage3 blocks
Token bloat3.9×

Fastest improvements

  • You’re already in decent shape — the next moat is monitoring drift over time.
  • Create an llms.txt file so AI crawlers can discover your content structure without heavy crawling. Generate llms.txt →
  • Run a full entropy audit to find which DOM regions waste the most tokens. Run Entropy Audit →
🧪

JavaScript Rendering Check

We check what AI crawlers miss when they skip JavaScript execution.

Running headless browser to simulate AI extraction…
See other WordPress sites → social industry → Full leaderboard → Domain A–Z →
🛡️

Traditional SEO

75/100 25 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

📝 Title Tag

54 chars
Good length

Optimal range: 30–60 characters for SERP display.

📋 Meta Description

118 chars
Too short

Optimal range: 120–160 characters for snippet control.

🔤 Heading Hierarchy

  • ✓ Exactly 1 <h1> tag — found 1
  • ✓ Has <h2> headings — found 6
  • ✓ <h2> not before <h1>

🔍 Indexability

  • ✓ Canonical tag present → https://www.techsmith.com/snagit/
  • ✓ No noindex directive
  • ✓ Meta viewport set
  • ✓ HTML lang attribute → en-US
  • ✓ Hreflang tags
  • ✓ Googlebot allowed by robots.txt

🌐 Social / OpenGraph

  • ✓ og:title — Snagit
  • ✓ og:description — Screen capture and recording software for Windows and Mac. Quickly get images and videos. Start your free trial today!
  • ✓ og:image — preview
  • ✓ twitter:card — summary_large_image
📐 How the SEO Pillar score is calculated

SEO Pillar = Title (20 pts) + Meta Desc (20 pts) + Heading Hierarchy (20 pts) + Indexability (20 pts) + Social/OG (20 pts)

Each sub-score is derived from the checks above. Canonical tag, lang attribute, og:image, and a single H1 are the highest-impact items.

🤖

AI Readiness / GEO

84/100 40 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

This pillar aggregates citation share, hallucination risk, bot access, schema health, and content extractability. The individual diagnostic sections below contribute to this score.

🔗

Citation Alternatives

Research
💡
Insight: In the social sector, plodopitomnik-sad.by (ACRI: 89) currently has stronger AI extractability. AI models tend to prefer sources with higher semantic structure and schema coverage. Domains with ACRI < 40 see 3.5× more hallucinations. Read the research →
jingproject.com
67
Your ACRI Score
→
plodopitomnik-sad.by
89
Industry Peer ACRI
AI models prioritize pages with strong semantic structure and schema coverage. plodopitomnik-sad.by has schema coverage of 11 blocks and uses Express. Improve your score by implementing the remediation patches below.
📊 Side-by-Side Comparison →
🚨

Hallucination Risk

Research

Is AI lying about your brand? This panel measures how likely LLMs are to hallucinate facts when extracting information from your page.

Analyzing hallucination risk…

🤖 Bot Access Matrix

✅
GPTBot (OpenAI)
Allowed
✅
ClaudeBot (Anthropic)
Allowed
✅
CCBot (Common Crawl)
Allowed
✅
Google-Extended
Allowed
✅
Googlebot
Allowed

👻 Rendering (Ghost Ratio) Docs

Ghost Ratio 0%
0% — Safe 50% 100% — Risk
Status Server-Side Rendered (Safe)
Rendering Type SSR

📊 Structure & Information Density Docs

Structure Grade 45/100 — Fair
Structured Elements 126 elements (126 lists, 0 rows, 0 headers)
Total Words2117
Raw Density5.9%

🏷️ Schema Health Docs

Organization Schema ✅ Present
Product / Service Schema ⚠️ Not Found
Total Schema Blocks3 blocks

Schema Coverage Map

3/7 schema types detected
✅ Organization
❌ Product/Service
❌ Breadcrumb
✅ FAQ
❌ Article
✅ WebSite
💡Product / Service schema missing. AI models don't know this is a SaaS product. Add Product or SoftwareApplication schema so AI understands what you offer and can surface pricing/features.
💡BreadcrumbList schema missing. AI cannot understand your site hierarchy or how pages relate to each other.

📐 AI Efficiency Metrics Docs

70
AI Extractability
Medium
Crawl Cost
None
Blocklist Risk
Extractability70/100 — AI models can easily extract answers from this page
Crawl CostMedium (50/100) — moderate for AI crawlers to process
Blocklist RiskNone — 0 of 5 AI crawlers blocked

Token Bloat Research

25%
🗑️ 75%
Useful Content (117.6 KB)Bloat (345.2 KB)
Token Bloat Ratio3.9× — Lean

Multimodal Readiness

Visual Context93% Optimized for Vision
Image Alt Coverage67 / 72 images have alt text

TDM Rights

TDM-Reservation HeaderNot set
X-Robots-Tag: noaiNot set

🔥 Structural Entropy Check Research

27 Entropy
Poor Token Bloat: High
Noise Ratio: 74.6% · SNR: 0.34 · Signal: 30112 / Noise: 88360 tokens
Run Full Entropy Audit →

🔬 AI-Crawler Simulation

See your website the way AI crawlers do. CSS stripped, structure labeled, content chunked.

🌐
This is what humans see — styled, branded, visual.
Toggle to "AI Agent View" to see what GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and other AI crawlers actually extract from this page.
🤖

AI Answer Preview

NEW

See how AI models summarize your site. Left: your actual content. Right: what the LLM extracts and says about you.

Simulating AI extraction…

🔧 Tech Stack

FrameworkWordPress
AI-Readiness Score85/100
ServerPagely-ARES/1.22.13
CDN—
HTTP Status200
Load Time1048 ms
Raw HTML Size462.8 KB
Visible Text Size117.6 KB
⚡

Performance & Speed

47/100 20 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

⏱️ Time to First Byte

1048 ms
Slow — bots may time out or deprioritise

Google considers <200 ms "good". AI crawlers may have even shorter timeouts.

📦 Page Weight

1459
DOM nodes
463 KB
HTML payload
Heavy page — consider reducing DOM complexity

🗄️ Cache & CDN

  • ✗ Cache-Control header
  • ✗ CDN cache status
  • ✗ CDN detected

🔬 Tracker Tax

0
tracker scripts
0
third-party domains
0.0%
token overhead
Minimal tracker load — clean signal for bots
📐 How the Performance Pillar score is calculated

Perf Pillar = TTFB (35 pts) + Page Weight (25 pts) + Cache/CDN (20 pts) + Tracker Tax (20 pts)

TTFB <200 ms = full marks. DOM >3000 or payload >300 KB incurs heavy penalties. Tracker scripts beyond 5 reduce score.

🏗️

Architecture & Trust

75/100 15 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

🗺️ Sitemap & Robots

  • ✗ Sitemap declared in robots.txt
  • ✓ Googlebot allowed
  • ✓ GPTBot allowed
  • ✓ ClaudeBot allowed

🔗 Linking

85
internal links
63
external links
Good internal linking — helps crawlers discover content

🔒 Security & Trust

  • ✓ HSTS header (Strict-Transport-Security)
  • ✗ Content-Security-Policy header
  • ✓ HTTP status 200 OK (got 200)

♿ Accessibility Signals

  • ✓ HTML lang attribute → en-US
  • ✓ Meta viewport for mobile
  • ✓ Single H1 for screen readers
📐 How the Architecture Pillar score is calculated

Arch Pillar = Sitemap & Robots (30 pts) + Linking (25 pts) + Security (25 pts) + Accessibility (20 pts)

Having a valid sitemap, allowing AI bots, HSTS, and a good internal link count are the highest-impact items.

🏅 AI-Verified Trust Badge

Your site scores 67/100. Reach 80+ to unlock the green "AI-Verified" badge. Fix the issues below to improve your score.

AI-Verified badge for jingproject.com
Pending Audit — score below 80 threshold 
<a href="https://seodiff.io/radar/domains/jingproject.com" rel="noopener"><img src="https://seodiff.io/api/v1/badge?domain=jingproject.com" alt="AI-Verified by SEODiff" width="280" height="52"></a>

💡 Paste in your site footer, GitHub README, or email signature. Badge updates automatically as your score changes.

🔗 Similar social Sites

Domains with a similar tech stack, industry, and AI readiness profile to jingproject.com. Compare side-by-side.

Domain ACRI AI Score Tech Stack Token Bloat Schema
jingproject.com (this site) 67 79 WordPress 3.9× 3 —
siviagmen.com 67 80 WordPress 4.1× 3 Compare →
kroatien-nachrichten.de 67 79 WordPress 4.2× 3 Compare →
casibomgiris-site.com 66 77 WordPress 4.0× 3 Compare →
300gospodarka.pl 68 82 WordPress 4.1× 3 Compare →
ua-novosti.info 66 79 WordPress 4.1× 3 Compare →
Compare All 5 Similar Sites →

📋 Data Export

Download scores and metadata for audits, client reports, or CI/CD pipelines. Exports contain computed metrics only (no copyrighted content).

📄 Generate llms.txt 📊 Export JSON Data 📸 Download Visual

All data is generated automatically and updated with each crawl. JSON exports contain scores and metadata only (no copyrighted content).

Is this your company?

Monitor your AI visibility score weekly and get alerted when changes happen.

Start Free →

🧭 Self-Diffing (Private Layer)

For owned domains, combine this world snapshot with private drift + regression history.
Template Drift
Track in My Site
Drift → Traffic Impact
In development coming soon
Regression Incidents
Track in My Site
Internal Linking
Deep Audit graph
Semantic Structure
GEO view in Deep Audit
Content Quality
Thin/duplicate tracking
Open My Site report → Open Self-Diffing incidents → Open History timeline →

🕒 History

Score over timeAvailable in My Site history
Drift eventsTemplate timeline + incidents
Drift → Revenue AttributionComing soon
Schema/rendering/extractability changesTracked per scan in project history

📚 Research & Documentation

🔬
The Science of ACRI
Methodology behind the AI-Crawler Reality Index scoring model.
🚨
Hallucination Risk Study
How poor crawl access increases AI fabrication rates by 3.5×.
🔥
Structural Entropy Paper
The median web page wastes 55% of tokens on noise. Here's the data.
🧪
Extraction Lab Paper
Causal evidence that semantic HTML structure increases AI extraction accuracy.
📖
Documentation Hub
Metrics definitions, fix guides, and API reference for CI/CD integration.
🛠️
Free Tools
llms.txt generator, hallucination checker, entropy audit, and more.