trueconf.net 71 B
🛡️ SEO 92 🤖 GEO 81 ⚡ Perf 27 🏗️ Arch 71
Radar → Domains → trueconf.net

trueconf.net — Global SEODiff Score 71/100

trueconf.net
📊

The AI-Readiness profile for trueconf.net is strong: an ACRI of 84/100 places it ahead of 98% of domains in the index. Within the government vertical, this places trueconf.net above the industry average of 57 —, suggesting strong competitive positioning in AI search. The low ghost ratio (0%) confirms that what crawlers see matches what users see — a hallmark of strong SSR implementation. A 5.0× bloat ratio is typical for sites in this tech tier — not wasteful, but streamlining could further boost extractability. The presence of 5 structured data blocks ensures search engines and AI agents can accurately classify and extract entities from the page. The site maintains an open-door policy for AI crawlers — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and other major agents are all allowed.

71
B — Global SEODiff Score
Comprehensive search visibility assessment
Strong foundations, but Performance (27) is your bottleneck.
🎯 Top Fix: Monitor weekly to catch regressions early
92
🛡️ Traditional SEO
81
🤖 AI Readiness
27
⚡ Performance
71
🏗️ Architecture
🔬 Automated SEODiff Assessment · Snapshot: Feb 26, 2026 · 📋 API
Does your site score higher than trueconf.net?
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)92 × 0.25 = 23.0
🤖 AI Readiness / GEO (40% weight)81 × 0.40 = 32.4
⚡ Performance (20% weight)27 × 0.20 = 5.4
🏗️ Architecture & Trust (15% weight)71 × 0.15 = 10.7
Weighted sum = 23.0 + 32.4 + 5.4 + 10.7
Global SEODiff Score = 71 (B)
📊 ACRI Sub-Scores (AI Readiness Detail)
100
Bot Access
avg 92
100
Rendering
avg 93
35
Structure
avg 35
90
Schema
avg 10
85
Tech Stack
avg 64
🔀
Visibility Delta: Google vs AI
Google (Tranco)
Top 0.1%
Rank #434
Aligned
Gap
AI (ACRI)
Top 2%
Score 84/100

trueconf.net has balanced Google and AI visibility — both rank roughly in the same tier. ACRI measures technical crawler readiness. Read the methodology →

Why trueconf.net ranks here

Tech stackWordPress
Industrygovernment
RenderingSSR
Schema coverage5 blocks
Token bloat5.0×

Fastest improvements

  • Reduce token bloat (navigation/footer/code) so agents reach your main content faster (see Token Bloat).
  • 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 → government industry → Full leaderboard → Domain A–Z →
🛡️

Traditional SEO

92/100 25 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

📝 Title Tag

65 chars
Too long

Optimal range: 30–60 characters for SERP display.

📋 Meta Description

138 chars
Good length

Optimal range: 120–160 characters for snippet control.

🔤 Heading Hierarchy

  • ✓ Exactly 1 <h1> tag — found 1
  • ✓ Has <h2> headings — found 10
  • ✓ <h2> not before <h1>

🔍 Indexability

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

🌐 Social / OpenGraph

  • ✓ og:title — TrueConf Video Conferencing Solutions
  • ✓ og:description — Video conferencing software with UltraHD 4K support and great H.323/SIP interoperability. Super fast on-premises deployment in LAN or VPN.
  • ✓ og:image — preview
  • ✗ twitter:card
📐 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

81/100 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 government sector, gep.com (ACRI: 83) 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 →
trueconf.net
70
Your ACRI Score
→
gep.com
83
Industry Peer ACRI
AI models prioritize pages with strong semantic structure and schema coverage. gep.com has schema coverage of 3 blocks and uses Drupal. 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 35/100 — Low
Structured Elements 196 elements (196 lists, 0 rows, 0 headers)
Total Words5408
Raw Density3.6%
💡Low structure score (35/100). Your content appears as a wall of text with few structured HTML elements. You have 196 list items, 0 table rows, 0 table headers. Convert features into <ul> lists and data into <table> elements to help AI models extract structured information.

🏷️ Schema Health Docs

Organization Schema ✅ Present
Product / Service Schema ✅ Present
Total Schema Blocks5 blocks

Schema Coverage Map

6/7 schema types detected
✅ Organization
✅ Product/Service
✅ Breadcrumb
✅ FAQ
❌ Article
✅ WebSite

📐 AI Efficiency Metrics Docs

78
AI Extractability
Medium
Crawl Cost
None
Blocklist Risk
Extractability78/100 — 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

20%
🗑️ 80%
Useful Content (41.3 KB)Bloat (166.3 KB)
Token Bloat Ratio5.0× — Lean

Multimodal Readiness

Visual Context88% Optimized for Vision
Image Alt Coverage49 / 56 images have alt text

TDM Rights

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

🔥 Structural Entropy Check Research

0 Entropy
Poor Token Bloat: High
Noise Ratio: 80.1% · SNR: 0.25 · Signal: 10561 / Noise: 42582 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
Servernginx
CDN—
HTTP Status200
Load Time3407 ms
Raw HTML Size207.6 KB
Visible Text Size41.3 KB
⚡

Performance & Speed

27/100 20 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

⏱️ Time to First Byte

3407 ms
Slow — bots may time out or deprioritise

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

📦 Page Weight

1709
DOM nodes
208 KB
HTML payload
Moderate weight — acceptable for most scenarios

🗄️ Cache & CDN

  • ✓ Cache-Control header → no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate
  • ✗ 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

71/100 15 % of Global Score 🟢 High Confidence

🗺️ Sitemap & Robots

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

🔗 Linking

2
internal links
219
external links
Limited internal links — consider adding contextual cross-links

🔒 Security & Trust

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

♿ Accessibility Signals

  • ✓ HTML lang attribute → en
  • ✓ 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 70/100. Reach 80+ to unlock the green "AI-Verified" badge. Fix the issues below to improve your score.

AI-Verified badge for trueconf.net
Pending Audit — score below 80 threshold 
<a href="https://seodiff.io/radar/domains/trueconf.net" rel="noopener"><img src="https://seodiff.io/api/v1/badge?domain=trueconf.net" 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 government Sites

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

Domain ACRI AI Score Tech Stack Token Bloat Schema
trueconf.net (this site) 70 84 WordPress 5.0× 5 —
trueconf.name 70 84 WordPress 5.0× 5 Compare →
trueconf.com 70 84 WordPress 5.0× 5 Compare →
gallaudet.edu 70 83 WordPress 4.8× 3 Compare →
thesouthfirst.com 66 76 WordPress 3.3× 5 Compare →
verbit.ai 77 87 WordPress 4.6× 5 Compare →
Compare All 5 Similar Sites →
📈

Projected Impact

ROI EST.

If you apply the patches above, here's the estimated improvement for trueconf.net:

Current Score
84
Projected Score
87
Improvement
+3 pts
Reduce token bloat +3 pts

*Estimates based on SEODiff's scoring model. Actual results depend on implementation quality.

📋 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.