Content gaps check
Content patterns: interpret purpose before alleging a gap
TL;DR
Static word counts, FAQ markers and URL patterns support manual review. They do not establish missing answers, insufficient quality or universal page requirements.
What the current check observes
The auditor counts stripped static text, looks for FAQPage type strings, question headings or FAQ-like classes, and searches configured blog/docs/pricing/about/help URL patterns in discovered URLs and homepage link strings. Nonempty meta descriptions and H2 patterns on pages over 300 words are also observed.
Context and prerequisites
A FAQ marker is not validated Q&A. A URL pattern is not fetched-content proof, and incomplete discovery cannot establish site-wide absence. Five hundred words, a FAQ, blog, pricing page or H2 hierarchy are not universal requirements. Static extraction and regex observations can differ from rendered content.
How to review the observation
Identify what visitors need from each page. Compare actual content with that purpose and known unanswered questions. Keep short documentation, service and utility pages concise. Add relevant content only when a real need is demonstrated, not to satisfy a word threshold or filename pattern.
Illustrative example, not a universal prescription
<title>Password reset</title> <p>Enter your email to request a reset link.</p>
This utility page can be useful without 500 words, a pricing page or FAQ. Its adequacy requires task context, not a generic threshold.
Measurement and experimental legacy calculation
Public measurement separates Confirmed issue, Advisory, Unknown, Not applicable and Observed pass. An observed pass applies only to an explicit bounded rule; absence of an emitted failure is not a pass. Missing prerequisites do not earn repair credit.
Start 100. Meta-description contribution is round(15 × fraction with nonempty description) - 15. Word counts, FAQ markers, page-type patterns, heading patterns and homepage length do not deduct. Missing descriptions still affect legacy points although their purpose is unverified.
Legacy values are clamped to 0..100 and rounded. They are not readiness certification, risk indicators or predicted citation outcomes. Method changes do not rewrite historical records.
Full methodology and fixed weightsSources and further manual validation
The observations above describe the local implementation, not guarantees from these sources. Protocol and provider documents help interpret purpose and perform checks this audit does not implement.
What observations does this check return?
LLMScore audits eleven readiness categories. Free, no signup.
Run this check on your site →