We pointed our own audit engine at see-geo.com and it gave us a C — 78/100. One afternoon of fixes later, a re-run scored B, 82/100, with entity clarity jumping from 66 to 92. This is the full report, unedited: what the engine caught, what moved, and the part every audit tool glosses over — the findings no code change can fix. We're publishing it because a visibility tool that won't show you its own visibility isn't one you should trust.
Every number below comes from the same free audit that runs on our homepage, plus our visibility scanner. Same engine, same scoring, no house discount.
What did our own engine catch us doing?
The first run returned grade C (78/100) — SEO 85, GEO 70 — with eleven findings. The category breakdown told the story at a glance:
| Category | Score |
|---|---|
| Crawlability & access | 100 |
| Technical foundation | 85 |
| Structured data | 92 |
| Content extractability | 59 |
| Off-site presence & mentions | 55 |
| Entity clarity | 66 |
The plumbing was fine. The three weak categories were all about meaning — and two findings were genuinely embarrassing for a company that sells this exact fix:
"Only machines can see what you do." Our JSON-LD described SeeGeo precisely. Our visible homepage never did. A human — or any AI reading rendered text instead of structured data — had to work out what the product was. We'd made the classic mistake of telling the machines and forgetting the people.
No About page. The engine calls this "a trust gap in both Google's quality guidelines and AI systems' source weighing." It probed /about, /about-us, and /company. All dead. We sell entity clarity and had no entity page.
Six French articles orphaned. In the sitemap, linked from nowhere. Crawlers deprioritize pages nothing points to; ours literally couldn't be found by following links.
Plus: no visible dates anywhere ("freshness: 0/100"), no question-shaped headings on pages that answer questions, and our services page scored 56/100 on "can an AI quote this?"
What did one afternoon of fixes buy?
We did exactly what our own reports tell customers to do, in report order:
- Built the About page (English and French) — answer-first opening, question-shaped headings, a visible date, and only checkable claims. We drafted a location line, couldn't verify it against anything, and deleted it. If it's not checkable, it doesn't go on a trust page.
- Put the one-sentence definition in visible prose on both landing pages: what SeeGeo is, in the first screen, for humans and rendered-text readers alike.
- Added honest "Updated August 2026" lines — from a manually-bumped constant, not an auto-stamp. An automatic date would claim freshness the content might not have, which is precisely the kind of trick the audit exists to catch.
- De-orphaned the French blog with a recent-articles section on the French landing page.
- Rephrased headings as questions where the page genuinely answers one.
Re-run, same engine, same rules:
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Grade | C (78) | B (82) |
| SEO | 85 | 89 |
| GEO | 70 | 75 |
| Entity clarity | 66 | 92 |
| Content extractability | 59 | 67 |
| Findings | 11 | 8 |
An afternoon. No redesign, no migration, no consultant. The single biggest mover — entity clarity, +26 — came from an About page and one visible sentence.
What can't code fix?
Here's the section most tools won't write. Off-site presence scored 55 before the fixes and 55 after, because no change to your own website makes other websites mention you.
The engine's top finding, before and after, was this: for our own category queries — things like "free tool to check if AI can see my website" — Gemini builds its answers from about ten specific pages, and we appear on none of them. It cites tools like searchscore.io, frase.io, and crawlercheck.com. We are, precisely, the problem we sell the fix for: reachable, readable, and absent from the answer.
The fix isn't code. It's getting named on the pages AI already trusts — directories, comparison posts, community threads. That's outreach work, it's slow, and our own engine hands us the exact target list. We'll report how it goes.
The bigger lesson: being mentioned is not being read
While auditing ourselves, we ran a visibility scan on a brand at the other end of the spectrum — Linear, the issue tracker, a category leader. Twenty prompts, three runs each, live against Gemini:
- Mentioned in 59 of 60 answers (98%)
- Average position 1.4 when the answer was a ranked list
- Ahead of Jira on share of voice
Then we ran our citation probe, which records the web pages a search-grounded model actually retrieves while answering those same prompts. Across every answer that drew on live search, linear.app appeared zero times. What got read instead: comparison listicles (one project-management blog was read five separate times), YouTube, Reddit, and competitors' comparison pages.
Sit with that: the category leader is in nearly every AI answer, and the AI never once read the leader's own website to write them. The answers are assembled from third-party pages. Being the best product puts your name in the answer; being on the listicles is what puts your pages in the pipeline — and that's what you can lose, or win, without your product changing at all.
That asymmetry is the entire case for measuring this stuff instead of guessing.
What happens next?
Our domain is days old, so search indexing is a waiting game — the honest accelerants are inbound links and time, not technical tricks. We'll keep working the target list our own audit produced, and we're building a public page that charts our own category visibility week by week, measured by our own scanner. When the line moves — either direction — you'll see it.
Frequently asked questions
Isn't publishing a C embarrassing? Less embarrassing than hiding it. The audit is deterministic — same site in, same score out — so the score was true whether we published it or not. A visibility company that curates its own visibility numbers is asking you to trust a mirror it won't look into.
Why did the score only move 4 points if entity clarity jumped 26? Because the overall grade weighs six categories and the biggest remaining weakness — off-site presence — is immune to on-site fixes. That's honest scoring working as intended: an afternoon of edits shouldn't buy an A.
Can I run the same audit on my site? Yes — it's the free audit on our homepage. Same engine, same scoring, about a minute, first three audits free with no signup.