Kuroma Kuroma

share.google scores 20/100 for AI Readiness

share.google scores 20/100 (grade F) on AI Readiness, audited 10 Aug 2026. Its strongest area is Technical Optimization (47) and its weakest is AI Readiness (5); the biggest single gap is Question Coverage & FAQ Presence at 0/100 (No FAQ schema markup detected).

Audited URL: https://share.google

20/100
Grade
F

This audit is 36 days old. AI answers change between audits, so what AI search sees today may differ from this card.

Updated 36 days ago

Is share.google ready for AI search?

Not yet: share.google scores 20/100 (grade F). Start with Add FAQ Schema Markup and Make This Page’s Facts Extractable.

Category scores

This audit was scored on rubric version 2026-08-10, not the current 2026-08-13 rubric. Scores are only comparable within one rubric generation, so how much each check counts toward the total is left out. The checks on this page, their verdicts and their scores are exactly what that audit measured. A fresh audit of this site is scored on the current rubric.

On-Page Content 23
Technical Optimization 47
Authority Signals 14
AI Readiness 5

All 19 scored checks

Every check the published rubric scores, with what this audit found on the page.

On-Page Content

  • Content Depth & Comprehensiveness Fail 24/100

    Found: 45 words, 1 paragraphs, 1 lists, 1 images (1 with alt text)

    • Content length (45 words) is below recommended minimum of 1,000 words
    • Limited use of lists for scannable content
  • Question Coverage & FAQ Presence Fail 0/100

    No FAQ structure. 0 question headings. 0 questions detected in content

    • No FAQ schema markup detected
    • Few question-based headings
  • Structured Data Quality Fail 0/100

    No JSON-LD structured data found

    • No extractable data structures found — the page is unbroken prose
  • AI Readability Score Partial 70/100

    Average 7 words/sentence. 0 long sentences. No text formatting.

  • Heading Hierarchy Needs work 40/100

    H1: 0, H2: 2, H3: 0. Proper hierarchy.

    • Missing H1 heading
  • Media Accessibility Partial 52/100

    Measures whether images, video, and charts have text equivalents AI can read.

    • 1 images have alt text too short to describe what they show ("Google").

Technical Optimization

Authority Signals

  • E-E-A-T Signals Fail 0/100

    Experience: 0/10. Expertise: 0/25. Authority: 0/10. Trust: 0/25

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
  • External Citations & References Needs work 25/100

    3 external links, 0 citation phrases, 0 statistics. No references section.

  • Trust & Brand Signals Fail 15/100

    Present: SSL

    • No privacy policy link found
    • No contact information easily accessible

AI Readiness

  • Answer Box Potential Fail 15/100

    1 definitions, 0 ordered lists, 0 comparison structures

    • No FAQ structure detected
  • Citation-Worthiness Fail 0/100

    0 original data indicators, 0 percentages, 0 quotes.

    • Limited use of specific statistics
  • Content Freshness Fail 0/100

    No recent year references

    • No recent year references in content
    • No machine-readable date on the page, so AI cannot tell when it was written
  • Unique Value Proposition Fail 0/100

    0 of 1 passages carry a figure, 0 set two figures against each other, 0 named versions or models.

    • No passage on the page carries a figure a reader could check
  • AI Discoverability Not measured 0/100

    Score: 0/100

  • Raw HTML Availability Needs work 30/100

    45 words readable without JavaScript

    • Only 45 words are readable without JavaScript; AI crawlers run no JavaScript and will see very little of this page.

This audit measures citation readiness: how easily AI engines can crawl, extract, and quote these pages. It cannot see the off-site brand footprint (mentions, reviews, third-party coverage) that gates whether AI engines retrieve a brand at all; Kuroma's visibility scans and off-site signals track that side. How the score works

Score your own site → Claim this card