Kuroma Kuroma

humetric.net scores 41/100 for AI Readiness

Humetric (humetric.net) scores 41/100 (grade D) on AI Readiness, audited 22 Aug 2026. Its strongest area is On-Page Content (53) and its weakest is Authority Signals (27); the biggest single gap is Content Freshness at 0/100 (No recent year references in content). That places it above the median of the 30,898 sites Kuroma has audited.

Audited URL: http://humetric.net

41/100
Grade
D

The most points to recover are in Crawlability & Accessibility: it scored 41/100 on a check worth 13% of the total, which takes 7.7 points off the overall score.

This audit is 24 days old. AI answers change between audits, so what AI search sees today may differ from this card.

Updated 24 days ago

Above the median of all audited sites Median 39 · Top quartile 45 · across 30,898 audited sites

Is humetric.net ready for AI search?

Not yet: humetric.net scores 41/100 (grade D). Start with Make This Page’s Facts Extractable and Update Content Freshness.

Category scores

On-Page Content 25% of the score 53
Technical Optimization 20% of the score 52
Authority Signals 25% of the score 27
AI Readiness 30% of the score 34

Top fixes, ranked by points recovered

Ranked by each check's share of the overall score times how far it fell short, so the biggest number is the biggest win, not the lowest score.

  1. Improve Crawlability & AI Crawler Access up to +7.7 pts

    On http://humetric.net · Technical Optimization → Crawlability & Accessibility, scored 41/100

    • Canonical URL does not match page URL
    • 1 of 15 links cannot be followed by a crawler
    • The response at humetric.net is not a robots.txt file, so AI crawler access could not be verified.
    • Verify canonical tag points to the correct URL
    • This page opens 8 distinct paths into the rest of the site; linking to more of it gives crawlers more to find
    • Replace placeholder links (href="#", javascript:) with real URLs or remove them
  2. Increase Citation-Worthy Content up to +6.6 pts

    On http://humetric.net · AI Readiness → Citation-Worthiness, scored 12/100

    • Limited use of specific statistics
    • Conduct original research or surveys
    • Include specific statistics with sources
    • Add expert quotes and interviews
  3. Strengthen E-E-A-T Signals up to +6.3 pts

    On http://humetric.net · Authority Signals → E-E-A-T Signals, scored 10/100

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
    • Add author byline with name and credentials
    • Create detailed author bio pages
    • Include "About Us" with company history
  4. Add External Citations & References up to +6.3 pts

    On http://humetric.net · Authority Signals → External Citations & References, scored 30/100

    • Few external citations to authoritative sources
    • Add links to reputable sources that support your claims
    • Use citation language like "according to..." or "research shows..."
    • Add a references or sources section
  5. Add Trust Signals up to +5.7 pts

    On http://humetric.net · Authority Signals → Trust & Brand Signals, scored 37/100

    • No contact information easily accessible
    • Declare the publisher in Organization schema (name, url, logo, sameAs) so an engine can attribute the page
    • Add clear contact options (form, email, phone)
    • Add customer testimonials or reviews

All 19 scored checks

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

On-Page Content 25% of the score

  • Content Depth & Comprehensiveness Partial 54/100

    6.5% of the overall score

    Found: 586 words, 44 paragraphs, 2 lists, 12 images (0 with alt text)

    • Content length (586 words) is below recommended minimum of 1,000 words
    • 12 images missing alt text (e.g. /brand/logo-black.svg, /brand/logo-white.svg, /platform-logos/openai.svg)
  • Question Coverage & FAQ Presence Pass 85/100

    6.5% of the overall score

    FAQ schema present. 6 question headings. 3 questions detected in content

  • Structured Data Quality Fail 13/100

    4.5% of the overall score

    1 JSON-LD scripts. Schema types: FAQPage

  • AI Readability Score Needs work 35/100

    3% of the overall score

    Average 14 words/sentence. 1 long sentences. No text formatting.

  • Heading Hierarchy Pass 84/100

    2.8% of the overall score

    H1: 1, H2: 5, H3: 11. Proper hierarchy.

  • Media Accessibility Fail 12/100

    1.8% of the overall score

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

    • 12 of 12 content images have no alt text, so their content is invisible to AI search.
    • This page has 12 images but only ~586 words, so your key information may be trapped in images that AI search can't read.

Technical Optimization 20% of the score

  • Schema Markup Completeness Partial 60/100

    1% of the overall score

    1 valid schemas, has OpenGraph

  • Page Performance Indicators Pass 100/100

    2% of the overall score

    2 render-blocking resources. 395 elements for 586 words

  • Mobile Optimization Partial 60/100

    4% of the overall score

    Has viewport

  • Crawlability & Accessibility Needs work 41/100

    13% of the overall score

    No HTTPS. Has canonical. Indexable. AI crawler access unverified (robots.txt unreadable). 1 placeholder links

    • Canonical URL does not match page URL
    • 1 of 15 links cannot be followed by a crawler
    • The response at humetric.net is not a robots.txt file, so AI crawler access could not be verified.

Authority Signals 25% of the score

  • E-E-A-T Signals Fail 10/100

    7% of the overall score

    Experience: 0/10. Expertise: 4/25. Authority: 4/25. Trust: 0/25

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
  • External Citations & References Needs work 30/100

    9% of the overall score

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

    • Few external citations to authoritative sources
  • Trust & Brand Signals Needs work 37/100

    9% of the overall score

    Present: About page, Privacy Policy, Social profiles (2)

    • No contact information easily accessible

AI Readiness 30% of the score

  • Answer Box Potential Pass 75/100

    7.2% of the overall score

    8 of 17 headings open a quotable passage, 1 definitions, 0 comparison structures, FAQ schema

  • Citation-Worthiness Fail 12/100

    7.5% of the overall score

    0 original data indicators, 3 percentages, 0 quotes.

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

    5.7% of the overall score

    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

    5.1% of the overall score

    0 of 45 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 78/100

    3% of the overall score

    Score: 78/100

  • Raw HTML Availability Pass 100/100

    1.5% of the overall score

    586 words readable without JavaScript

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