Tu sitio
como lo lee la IA.

GetLoopLoop.com AI search audit

Sources: "Crawl" means GLLmolfar crawl #32, the open crawl (start URL https://www.getlooploop.com/, 300 of 300 URLs, 300 embeddings). The tool results gave no crawl date. "Probe" is the AI bot check run 2026-10-28 13:36 UTC. "Audit" is a URL audit of 2026-10-28 14:03 UTC. Search Console was not used.

Top 3 changes

1. Add named authors and visible dates to the content templates. (P1)
2. Crawl: 225 URLs (75%) have long pages without an author. 218 URLs (72.7%) have no date.
3. The glossary page I audited shows "Written by Prepared at GetLoopLoop" and "Updated September 2026". That is no named person.
4. The audited home page and /news have no author and no dateModified. Their datePublished is identical (2026-10-16T10:32:57Z), which looks like a template default. That is my judgment.
5. Add a byline to an author page and a Person with sameAs in the Article schema. Add datePublished and dateModified per page. This unblocks trust signals, which are the weakest part of the score (36).
6. To verify, run audit_url on one page and check trust.author and the dates. Then run a new crawl and check ai.noAuthor and ai.noDate.
7. Source the claims on the glossary and skills pages. (P1)
8. Crawl: ai.claims affects 42 URLs. 33 of them are under /skills/. The rest are /glossary/, /ai-volatility, /gllmolfar, /questions and /voicescope.
9. Audit of /glossary/ai-visibility: it has 0 stat sentences. It does make unsourced assertions: "Earn at least three high-quality backlinks", and a first-person "Worked example" about "BrandX" with no source. My judgment is that these read as invented illustration.
10. Link each figure or example to its source next to the sentence. Mark illustrations as hypothetical.
11. To verify, run a new crawl and check ai.claims.
12. Fix the required schema properties. (P2)
13. Crawl: structured.errors affects 156 URLs (52%). The home page is one. Audit: it lists SoftwareApplication.aggregateRating|review as missing.
14. Add the missing property, or remove the markup that cannot be filled honestly. Google requires it for the rich result. This unblocks eligibility for that rich result.
15. To verify, run audit_url on the home page and check that schemaErrors is empty.

No P0 findings. In this crawl, probe and audit I found no content that needs JavaScript, no blocked search bot and no bot wall.

P0

None found.

• JavaScript (audit): raw and rendered word counts are the same on all three pages: home 1,931/1,931, /glossary/ai-visibility 1,006/1,006, /news 1,108/1,108. 0 words appear only after JavaScript. The only JS difference is 2 links on each page.
• Search bots (probe): no AI bot is blocked in robots.txt, and every path listed is allowed. All 10 pages fetched as OAI-SearchBot and Claude-SearchBot came back OK, with 0 challenge, 0 blocked and 0 robots.

P1

• Author and dates are in the Top 3 above.
• Claims without sources are also in the Top 3 above.
• Low main-content share: crawl ai.lowMain affects 21 URLs (7%). All are under /skills/* (templates such as affaan-m/ecc: 4 URLs, and open.feishu.cn, open.larksuite.com and code.deepline.com: 2 each). In the audit, chrome words are small on the three pages: 93 of 2,247 on home, 164 of 1,306 on the glossary page, 87 of 1,684 on /news. They are not low-main pages.
• Passages that need an earlier passage: crawl ai.dangling affects 7 URLs. 3 are /glossary/, and there is 1 each for /legal/, /news/, /vectorscope and /vectorscope/. Open each section with its subject.
• Walls of text: crawl ai.walls affects 67 URLs, 14 of them under claude-seo. It is low importance. Add a heading every few paragraphs.

P2 (key fixes by template, crawl)

• nonIndexable: all 6 pages are on the /skills template. Check whether they should be indexed. If they should, remove the noindex or point the canonical at the page itself.
• Other crawl findings:
• cannibal (14 URLs, high).
• hreflang.noReturn (6, high) and hreflang.missingSelf (6).
• a11y.unlabeled (1, high).
• images.missingAlt (41). The audit shows 22 of 30 images without alt on home, and 6 of 6 on the glossary page.
• 58 external 4xx links.
• 14 http:// links.
• 23 pages under 250 words.
• Duplicate titles (7), duplicate descriptions (7) and duplicate H1s (7).
• Over-long titles (137), descriptions (131) and H1s (148).
• 10 slow URLs.
• Missing X-Content-Type-Options (300 URLs).
• Cookies without Secure (299 URLs).
• Not in the fix list: jsContent, javascript.* and noInlinks do not appear, so I did not count them.
• Audit: all three audited pages show inSitemap: false and 0 inlinks. These are single-page audit rows, so I am not confident they reflect the crawl. Confirm in the crawl before acting.

Google: SEO basics

• Googlebot (audit): allowed on all three pages (robots.txt lines 2, 17 and 13). All three are indexable with 200 status and a self-canonical.
• Titles and descriptions (audit): home title is 57 characters (528 px). /news title is 60 characters (594 px), over the 580 px cut. Descriptions are within limits. In the crawl, 122 titles are over 580 px.
• Duplicate and hreflang issues (crawl): 14 pages near-duplicate another page. 7 titles and 7 descriptions are duplicated. 6 URLs have hreflang return-link or self-reference problems. Fix these to avoid split signals.
• Schema (audit): the home page has Organization, WebSite, SoftwareApplication, WebPage, FAQPage and ItemList. It has one error and two warnings (Offer.url, ListItem.item). The glossary page has no schema errors.
• Performance and headers (audit): response times were 1.3–1.7 s on the three pages, and the crawl lists 10 URLs over 1 s. cache-control is no-store on all three. That is my judgment: a cacheable response might help speed.
• Accessibility (audit): axe flagged colour contrast, definition-list structure and a label mismatch on home. /news has no <main> landmark.

Other engines: structure a retriever can extract

• AI readiness (crawl #32, probe): score 87/100. The four parts are access 100 (weight 0.35), readability 91 (0.30), meaning 95 (0.20) and trust 36 (0.15). This is GLLmolfar's score, not a ranking factor.
• robots.txt per bot (probe): all allowed on /, /skills/, /glossary/, /news/, /notes/, /legal/, /vectorscope/, /free-tools/ and /ai-volatility/. Blocked paths: none for any bot.
• Search: OAI-SearchBot (OpenAI), Claude-SearchBot (Anthropic), PerplexityBot and Amazonbot. All allowed.
• User: ChatGPT-User, Claude-User and Perplexity-User. All allowed.
• Training: GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended, CCBot, Bytespider and meta-externalagent. All allowed. Allowing training bots is a choice. It does not affect the search bots.
• Fetch as each bot vs a browser (probe): for the 10 bots that were fetched (GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-SearchBot, Claude-User, PerplexityBot, Perplexity-User and Amazonbot), each result was 10 OK, 0 less content than the browser, 0 challenge, 0 blocked and 0 robots. That matches the browser. Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended, CCBot, Bytespider and meta-externalagent were checked in robots.txt only, with no fetch.
• llms.txt (probe): found at 33 KB, titled "GetLoopLoop", with 32 links, 15 sections and 0 broken links. llms-full.txt was not found.
• Markdown for agents (probe): not offered on the 3 URLs tested. The Accept: text/markdown header returned text/html, and the .md twin returned 404. HTML is fully readable without JavaScript, so this is optional. It would let agents fetch a cleaner copy. To verify, run the probe again.
• Structure (audit):
• Home has 5 question-style headings, 19 lists and an FAQPage block.
• The glossary page has 10 numbered H2 sections and a FAQPage block.
• /news has 3 H2s and 19 H3s.
• The /news H1 merges the site name and tagline ("Signal Observatory What changed in search and AI this week").
• Retriever issues: the 7 dangling-section pages, 67 walls of text and 21 low-main pages above all affect how well a passage can be quoted on its own.

What I did not cover

• Crawl size: you asked for 500 URLs if no crawl was open. Crawl #32 was open, so I used it. It has 300 URLs and its limit was 300, so any URLs beyond that are missing. The crawl date was not in the tool results.
• Probe: about 10 pages per bot. Five training bots were checked in robots.txt only.
• Fix list: it returned 33 fixes, which is the full list. I did not call explain_fix or get_fix_urls, so the URL lists per fix are not shown.
• Not counted: jsContent, javascript.* and noInlinks are not in the fix list.
• Embeddings: all 300 pages have embeddings. I did not use topics, cannibalization detail or semantic search.
• Not run: Search Console data and Markdown tests beyond 3 URLs. No tool failed.
• Report: I did not save it with save_report.

URL audit of https://www.getlooploop.com/

Source for everything below: URL audit, 2026-10-28 14:04 UTC (HTTP 200, indexable). No crawl was running when I checked, so I ran the audit. I did not call crawl 32 or any other tool. Where a line is my own reading, I mark it as judgment.

The 3 most important changes

1. Fix the aria-label on the glossary graph link (.home-graph-preview). Its accessible name does not contain its visible text. This is a names-and-labels fix (WCAG 2.5.3).
2. Fix the <dl> markup in .home-kpis. One block of markup causes two serious violations, definition-list and dlitem.
3. Raise the colour contrast on .shadow-sm > .sm\:inline.hidden (the "Light" theme label) and .home-moved-axis--window. After the change, run the URL audit again.

1. axe-core violations (impact critical or serious)

Source: URL audit, axe-core 4.14.0. There are no critical violations. There are 4 serious ones. Corrections follow your sequence.

Names and labels

Content without JavaScript (markup served in the HTML)

All other items

2. What JavaScript changes

Source: URL audit (raw HTML compared with the rendered page).

• Title, canonical, meta robots: the audit reports no difference. Title is "GetLoopLoop — AI Visibility Tracking for ChatGPT & Gemini". Canonical is https://www.getlooploop.com/. Meta robots is index, follow. The audit lists only links under jsDiff.
• Links: 2 differ. The rendered text adds "Sign in" and "Start" in the header, and they are absent from rawText. (judgment: these are the 2 links the audit counts.)
• Word count: 1931 raw and 1931 rendered, so no difference. The rendered HTML is 754 bytes larger (273,632 raw, 274,386 rendered).
• Not covered: the audit gave no list of which links changed beyond the count.

3. Prices, plan limits, contact data, testimonials

Source: URL audit, rawText and renderedText.

Other findings:

• Schema error: the audit flags SoftwareApplication.aggregateRating|review. The visible page has no testimonials or ratings to back it.
• Schema warnings: Offer.url and ListItem.item.
• The JSON-LD in the audit output was cut off, so I did not check the whole block.
• Everything else in the sections above is in both rawText and renderedText.

4. robots.txt per AI bot

Source: URL audit. robots.txt was found. Every bot is allowed by Allow: / in group * (line 2).

The audit did not include Claude-SearchBot, so I have no result for Claude search.

5. Does the response change with the Accept header?

I did not test this. The audit tool sends one request and has no Accept-header option, and I have no other tool to send a custom request. The only hint is the vary header: rsc, next-router-state-tree, next-router-prefetch, next-router-segment-prefetch. It does not list Accept. That suggests the HTML does not change by Accept, but it only shows what the server declares, not what it does. To verify, request the page with Accept: text/markdown and Accept: text/html and compare.

Not covered

• Accept-header test (above).
• Claude-SearchBot robots result.
• Visible text of the glossary graph link and measured contrast ratios (the audit did not return them).

Appendix: other findings from the same audit

• axe region (moderate, 5 nodes): targets .pb-20, .home-eyebrow.text-gll-cyan and others in the hero. Put the hero content inside a landmark such as <main>.
• Images: 22 of 30 have no alt text.
• Sitemap: the page is not in the sitemap (inSitemap: false).
• Cache-Control: private, no-cache, no-store.
• Open axe items: 2 "incomplete" results that need manual review.

AI Visibility glossary page: review and rewrite of two sections

Page: https://www.getlooploop.com/glossary/ai-visibility Sources: crawl 32 (https://www.getlooploop.com/, 300 URLs, limit 300, embeddings on) and a URL audit run on 28 Oct 2026 at 14:05 UTC. Judgments are marked (judgment).

The most important changes

1. Answer "why does ChatGPT not mention my brand" on the page itself. (judgment) The page has no section for it. The only related text is the first "Asked out loud" answer, which begins with "Yes" to a question that is not yes/no. The draft in the rewrite below fits this question at 0.788, against 0.471 for the current page.
2. Rewrite section 03 so it can be measured and sourced. (judgment) It has no number, no named bot and no steps. The draft raises the fit for "how do I measure my brand in ChatGPT answers" from 0.553 to 0.717.
3. Move the measurement section up. (judgment, not measured) On the current page it is the 4th passage. The draft only tested the new text in isolation, so I cannot confirm that moving it improves retrieval.

1. Semantic search on crawl 32

The search returned only one section per page (the top section, mostly the intro). I could not see the page's own section scores there. For section-level scores I used measure_text.

2 and 3. Section audit

Source: URL audit, 28 Oct 2026, rendered text of 1,006 words. Judgments are (judgment).

Other findings from the audit:

• The audit's headings list shows 10 H2 sections plus H3s. Zero headings are phrased as questions (questionHeadings = 0).
• All six bots checked (Googlebot, GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended) are allowed by "Allow: /glossary".
• The page has no author or dateModified in its structured data, and no statistic sentences (statSentences = 0).

4. Rewrite plan by section

• Intro: keep as is. It is the page's strongest passage for question 1.
• 01: open with the definition, name "AI Visibility" in the last sentence in place of "It", and source one claim.
• 02: add the source or reason for each action.
• 03 (rewritten below): lead with the method, name the metrics, source the facts.
• 04: attach one source per mistake.
• 05: replace "It is also different" with the subject name.
• 06: replace BrandX with a real, dated, sourced case.
• 08 (rewritten below): start with the cause and name OAI-SearchBot.

5. Rewrites of the two weakest sections

Both sections keep the page's plain-English glossary voice.

03 How to measure AI Visibility in ChatGPT answers

To measure AI Visibility in ChatGPT, ask ChatGPT the questions your buyers ask, then count how many answers name your brand and how many cite your URL. AI Visibility has no public score, so the measure is your own count: brand mentions divided by questions asked, repeated on the same list of questions each week.

Use three readings, and keep them apart:

- Mentions: the share of ChatGPT answers that name your brand. Ask five to ten buyer questions and record yes or no for each.

- Citations: the share of answers whose source list includes a URL of your domain.

- Search Console: Google Search Console shows impressions and clicks for Google Search only. It does not show ChatGPT answers.

Brandscope, a free GetLoopLoop tool, puts five buyer questions to ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini and shows each answer beside your own page. Run the same questions again after every change to your pages, because a citation can fade within days (GetLoopLoop market analysis, 16 October 2026).

08 Why ChatGPT does not mention my brand

ChatGPT does not mention your brand when its search crawler cannot fetch your pages, or when no page of yours answers the question in a passage it can quote. Check these three causes in order.

1. Access. OAI-SearchBot is the crawler that controls ChatGPT search. If robots.txt disallows OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT search cannot read your pages. GPTBot controls training only and does not decide this. On getlooploop.com, the URL audit of 28 October 2026 shows OAI-SearchBot allowed by "Allow: /glossary".

2. Answer. A page must state the answer in its first sentence and name the brand in it. A page that says "it" or "this" gives the model nothing to quote.

3. Competition. The model may prefer a competitor's page that matches the question better. Compare your best passage with theirs for the same question.

To verify a change, ask ChatGPT the same question again after the page is re-crawled, and run the URL audit again to confirm OAI-SearchBot is still allowed.

6. measure_text results (draft against the current page)

The draft contained only the two new sections (345 words, 2 passages). The current page has 10 passages.

The tool also reported "fit-lower". That is for question 1 ("what is AI visibility"): 0.607 on the current page, 0.454 in the draft. I did not rewrite the passage that serves that question, so section 01 and the intro stay in place. (judgment)

Decision (judgment):

• Keep both rewrites. The fit is higher for questions 2 and 3, and there is no new overlap.
• The "answer in an earlier passage" test is not met. Moving section 03 higher on the real page is a recommendation that has not been measured.
• Re-run measure_text with the full revised page, not only the two sections, to get a real position and an overall fit before publishing.

Not covered

• Section scores for the target page in semantic search. The search returned one section per page, so I used measure_text for per-passage scores.
• Crawl size. Crawl 32 has 300 URLs (limit 300), and every URL has an embedding. It is a single crawl from 28 Oct 2026, with no comparison to earlier crawls.
• Not run: Search Console data (not available), and ChatGPT itself. Nothing here shows what ChatGPT answers today.
• Facts used in the draft that need checking before publishing.
• The statement that a citation fades within days comes from the title and subtitle of a GetLoopLoop page in the crawl ("citations fade in 11 days"). I did not read the full article.
• "Five to ten questions" is my suggestion, not a sourced figure.
• Pages I did not measure: neighbouring pages (/brandscope, /glossary/ai-overview) beyond their nearest-neighbour scores.

Verifying after publishing

1. Run the URL audit on the page again to confirm the new text is served and OAI-SearchBot is still allowed.
2. Re-run the three semantic searches in a new crawl.
3. Run measure_text on the full page. The changes unblock a clearer answer for retrieval. They do not promise citations, rankings or traffic.

I'm summarising 30 semantic searches on the loaded crawl and writing the report. Crawl 32 was already open and no crawl was running, so I started nothing.

AI visibility tracking: coverage check for getlooploop.com

Sources. [C32] means semantic search on crawl 32 (28 Oct 2026, about 13:33 UTC, 300 pages, all 300 embedded). [J] means my judgment. I did not use URL audit or Search Console.

The 3 changes that matter most

1. Answer "What is GetLoopLoop?", "vs Profound", "alternatives" and "price" in one place (Q27, Q29, Q12, Q30).
2. [C32] For "What is GetLoopLoop?" the best page is /legal/terms (0.547), and the homepage is not in the returned list. For "GetLoopLoop vs Profound" the best page is again /legal/terms (0.441).
3. [J] Add a "What GetLoopLoop is" block to the homepage. Add one comparison page that covers both "vs Profound" and "alternatives". Add a "What is free, what costs money" page.
4. What this unblocks: a retriever finds a page that answers a brand question, instead of a legal page that only matches the name. Verify: run the same four questions on the next crawl.

1. Add one page on AI bot access (Q4, Q19, Q22).
2. [C32] Best scores are 0.516, 0.474 and 0.479, and none has a clear leader. For "Which AI crawlers read my site?" the top page is /glossary/ai-referral-traffic.
3. [J] Write "Which bot controls which assistant", with one claim per bot: OAI-SearchBot controls ChatGPT search, Claude-SearchBot controls Claude search, Googlebot controls Google Search and AI Overviews. GPTBot, ClaudeBot and Google-Extended are training only. Add a how-to section for each of OAI-SearchBot and Claude-SearchBot.
4. What this unblocks: a page whose text answers the crawler questions. Verify: re-run the three questions on the next crawl. To check your live robots.txt, run get_ai_readiness or audit_url, which I did not run.

1. Add one "how to choose" page for the choose-intent questions (Q11, Q13, Q14, Q17, Q18).
2. [C32] Every one of these has a best score of 0.442–0.521 and a gap under 0.05. /brandscope or /glossary/ai-visibility is top or second in 3 of the 5.
3. [J] Write one hub page: how to choose an AI visibility tool. Sections: AI visibility tracking vs rank tracking, crawl audit vs prompt sampling, suite SEO tool vs specialised tool, and a small-team path.
4. What this unblocks: a page that matches comparison questions. Verify: re-run the five questions on the next crawl.

One duplicate to fix.

• [C32] For Q16, /glossary/ai-overview (0.568) and /glossary/ai-overviews (0.562) are 0.005 apart.
• [J] These look like two pages for one topic. Merge them or canonicalise one to the other, then run GLLmolfar's cannibalization view to confirm.

How I decided "clearly"

All numbers are [C32].

• Best scores run from 0.441 to 0.670, a spread of 0.229. The median best score is 0.55.
• Gaps (best minus second) run from 0.002 to 0.266. The median gap is 0.024.
• Clearly above = gap of 0.05 or more. That is about the top quartile of gaps and about a fifth of the spread.
• A (coverage gap) = gap under 0.05 and best score below 0.55. That is 14 questions.
• Overlap (o) = gap under 0.05 and best score at or above 0.55. Several pages answer, none leads. That is 8 questions.
• B (cannibalization) = top two are both our pages, within 0.010, on the same intent. That is Q16 and Q30.
• C (answer only in section 3 or lower) could not be tested. The tool returned one section per page, section 1 for all 30, so no question is flagged. Deeper sections may exist but were not scored.

Eight questions have a clear leader: Q2, Q8, Q9, Q15, Q24, Q25, Q26 and Q28.

Appendix 1: all 30 questions [C32]

Section is §1 for every row. L = learn, C = choose, T = task, B = brand. "Home" is the homepage /.

Patterns [C32].

• /glossary/ai-visibility or /brandscope is the top page for 11 of 30 questions.
• At 0.670, the strongest match in the whole run is only moderate.

Close calls [J].

• Q21 (0.002 gap) is a news analysis against a tool page. I read that as overlap, not cannibalization.
• Q5, Q1 and Q22 have gaps of 0.014, 0.015 and 0.011, just outside the tie band.

Appendix 2: proposals for the 14 coverage gaps [J]

Where one page serves several questions, I merged them to avoid creating new cannibalization.

Not covered

• URL limit. Crawl 32 stopped at its 300-URL setting with nothing queued. Earlier crawls (25, 27) reached 500 pages, so some pages are not in this run.
• Lists cut. Each search returned a list of about 20–30 pages. I recorded only the top two per question.
• Sections. The tool gave one section per page, so criterion C is untested.
• Pages without embeddings. None; 300 of 300 are embedded.
• Tools not used. I did not run get_ai_readiness, audit_url, get_fixes, Search Console or the cannibalization view. Your live robots.txt is unverified.
• Tool failures. None.
• Questions. All 30 are my own, not real prompt data. I chose the competitors Profound and Semrush myself, so please confirm them.

I can also turn this into a shareable page if you want to send it to your team.

Google does not use llms.txt. The file is for other agents and tools.

The draft is saved at (work folder)\llms.txt. It has 26 link lines under 9 H2 sections.

Most important points

1. A live llms.txt already exists (AI readiness probe, 2026-10-28): 33 KB, 32 links, 15 sections, 0 broken links. Compare this draft with it before you replace it. This draft is shorter, with 26 links.
2. No about, pricing, documentation or contact page is in crawl 32. The page table has no URL for any of them. They are left out, not guessed. The Home page is included. I added a "Site" section for it, plus methodology, questions and legal, which you did not ask for.
3. Most topics are clusters of agent-skill pages and glossary terms. There are no guide pages for these topics. For "Workflows published" and "Technical SEO" I used the /skills hub and the highest-scoring skill page. For "Ad affiliate" and "Testing variance" the best matches are weak. The scores are 0.52 and 0.37 for Ad affiliate, and 0.52 for Testing variance. Check these two sections by hand.

Sources

• Crawl 32 (open crawl, 300 pages, embeddings on): topics, semantic search, and the pages table. I kept 294 pages that are status 200, indexable and have a canonical to themselves. Every URL in the draft is among them. Each line comes from that page's title, H1 and description, with no marketing claims added.
• AI readiness probe (2026-10-28): the current llms.txt data above.
• My judgment: which page best shows each topic.

AI access

• OAI-SearchBot, Claude-SearchBot and PerplexityBot: robots.txt allows all paths, and 10 of 10 test pages were fetched without problems.
• Googlebot was not tested.
• llms.txt does not unblock any bot. To check changes, run get_ai_readiness again with run_probe.

What I did not cover

• Crawl 32 stopped at its 300-page limit, so pages beyond it are not in the draft.
• I ran one semantic search per topic and took only the top results. I did not check each topic's other pages.
• The 6 pages that are not status 200, not indexable or not self-canonical are excluded. I did not list them.
• The topic names are GetLoopLoop's cluster labels (such as "Ai getlooploop"). I used them as H2 headings with light capitalization. Rename them before you publish.

Appendix: pages per topic

The "Site" section adds 4 more lines.