Kuroma Kuroma

airq.com.tw scores 49/100 for AI Readiness

airq.com.tw scores 49/100 (grade C) on AI Readiness, audited 22 Jul 2026. Its strongest area is Technical Optimization (85) and its weakest is AI Readiness (34); the biggest single gap is Question Coverage & FAQ Presence at 0/100 (No FAQ schema markup detected).

Audited URL: https://Airq.com.tw

49/100
Grade
C

This audit is 56 days old. AI answers change between audits, so what AI search sees today may differ from this card.

Updated 56 days ago

Is airq.com.tw ready for AI search?

Partly: airq.com.tw scores 49/100 (grade C). The two fixes that matter most are Add FAQ Schema Markup and Strengthen E-E-A-T Signals.

Category scores

This audit did not record which rubric version scored it, so it is not confirmed as 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 50
Technical Optimization 85
Authority Signals 38
AI Readiness 34

All 19 scored checks

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

On-Page Content

  • Content Depth & Comprehensiveness Pass 79/100

    Found: 926 words, 6 paragraphs, 18 lists, 9 images (9 with alt text)

    • Content length (926 words) is below recommended minimum of 1,000 words
  • 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 Partial 60/100

    1 JSON-LD scripts. Schema types: AutoPartsStore, Organization, WebSite, ImageObject, WebPage

  • AI Readability Score Partial 66/100

    Average 8 words/sentence. 6 long sentences. No text formatting.

  • Heading Hierarchy Partial 57/100

    H1: 2, H2: 8, H3: 2. Hierarchy issues.

    • Multiple H1 headings (2) - should have exactly one
  • Media Accessibility Partial 59/100

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

    • 6 images have generic or filename-only alt text (e.g. "image", "chart", a filename) that tells AI nothing about the content.
    • 9 images have no caption, so AI can't read the takeaway of a chart or diagram without one.

Technical Optimization

Authority Signals

  • E-E-A-T Signals Fail 20/100

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

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
  • External Citations & References Needs work 43/100

    28 external links, 0 citation phrases, 1 statistics. No references section.

  • Trust & Brand Signals Needs work 47/100

    Present: SSL, Privacy Policy, Contact

AI Readiness

  • Answer Box Potential Needs work 35/100

    2 definitions, 0 ordered lists, 0 tables

    • No FAQ structure detected
  • Citation-Worthiness Fail 20/100

    0 original data indicators, 1 percentages, 0 quotes.

    • Limited use of specific statistics
  • Content Freshness Needs work 25/100

    No recent year references

    • No recent year references in content
    • No article publish/modified dates in metadata
  • Unique Value Proposition Needs work 45/100

    4 unique value phrases, 4 differentiators, 0 case study mentions.

    • No case studies or concrete examples found
  • AI Discoverability Not measured 34/100

    Score: 34/100

  • Raw HTML Availability Pass 100/100

    926 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