LLMaoLLMao

    AI search visibility report · 2026-10-26

    How AI assistants see uncommongoods.com

    uncommongoods.com has an AI visibility score of 55/100. The site passed 15 of 34 tests. Its strongest areas are Technical Accessibility and Schema.org Markup. The areas to improve are Content Freshness and Readability.

    How ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity read uncommongoods.com

    Readability30/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    Extremely low readability scores due to excessive sentence length and complex structure.

    Schema.org Markup74/100

    Result: average. 4 of 5 tests passed.

    Valid JSON-LD for Organization, but missing critical Product and ItemList schemas.

    Authority & Trust Signals56/100

    Result: weak. 2 of 5 tests passed.

    Strong contact and trust pages, but lacks visible publication dates and author credentials.

    Citation & Source Quality60/100

    Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Contains internal links and some external links, but lacks citations to authoritative third-party sources.

    Content Freshness0/100

    Result: weak. 0 of 4 tests passed.

    No visible dates or schema-based freshness signals were detected.

    Content Structure64/100

    Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Good semantic HTML usage, but fails due to missing H1 and poor paragraph structure.

    Entity Definition60/100

    Result: average. 2 of 4 tests passed.

    Excellent About page and brand consistency, but lacks Person schema for authors.

    Technical Accessibility75/100

    Result: average. 3 of 4 tests passed.

    Content is accessible without JS, but robots.txt actively blocks major AI crawlers.

    How uncommongoods.com can improve its AI visibility

    • Allow AI Crawler Access (high priority)
    • Implement H1 Heading Hierarchy (high priority)
    • Add Product and ItemList Schema (high priority)
    • Display Content Freshness Signals (medium priority)
    • Optimize Sentence Length for Readability (medium priority)

    How uncommongoods.com compares to its competitors