LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-06-06

    How AI assistants see hackernews.com

    hackernews.com has an AI visibility score of 22/100. The site passed 8 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Readability and Technical Accessibility. The areas to improve are Content Structure and Content Freshness.

    How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read hackernews.com

    Readability75/100

    Result: average. 4 of 4 tests passed.

    Content is highly readable with appropriate sentence lengths, though technical jargon is common.

    Schema.org Markup0/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 5 tests passed.

    Completely lacks JSON-LD or any other structured data format.

    Authority & Trust Signals18/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 5 tests passed.

    Minimal trust signals beyond the brand name. Lacks clear contact info, physical address, or detailed trust pages.

    Citation & Source Quality30/100

    Result: weak. 1 of 4 tests passed.

    High volume of outbound links to diverse sources, but lacks inline citations or primary source attribution for its own claims.

    Content Freshness0/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    No machine-readable publication or modification dates found in metadata or schema.

    Content Structure0/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    Relies on legacy table-based layout with zero semantic HTML tags or heading hierarchy.

    Entity Definition25/100

    Result: weak. 1 of 4 tests passed.

    Consistent brand naming but lacks an About page or Person/Organization schema.

    Technical Accessibility50/100

    Result: weak. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent AI crawler access and JS-independence, but lacks meta descriptions and social meta tags.

    How hackernews.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Add JSON-LD Schema Markup (high priority)
    • Implement Meta Tags and Social Graph (high priority)
    • Modernize Semantic HTML Structure (medium priority)
    • Define Brand Entities Clearly (medium priority)
    • Enhance Trust Signals and Metadata (low priority)

    How hackernews.com compares to its competitors