arlington.com
Evidence collected August 31, 2026 · 10 polite, robots.txt-respecting requests · every claim cites what it saw
No letter grade — withheld, not failed
No letter grade is issued because 1 of 4 categories could not be observed. The categories that were measurable are scored below.
Read this before the numbers
This tool was built in a few days, on a stack of stated assumptions. I didn't have the time — or the inside knowledge of what buyers in this category actually optimize for — to be certain these are the metrics that matter most. The four categories and their weights are editorial judgment, not measurement: nobody has proven that these things cause employees to post, and I don't claim otherwise.
Where the evidence comes from: three of the four categories read only what your company has published on its own public site — the part you can fix on Monday. Half of Employee & Culture comes from somewhere else: aggregate counts of how many of your people posted in the last 90 days, from a licensed third-party index of public professional-network activity. Nothing here was scraped from LinkedIn by this tool. Those counts are records in an index, not a census — they undercount, they undercount small companies most, and you can't check them yourself — so each one says so where it appears, a zero is reported as "none in the index" and never as "nobody posts," and a company with fewer than 25 people in the index gets the number reported but not scored. No individual is named anywhere in this report.
To prioritize speed, this particular report was loaded using cached data; it was generated from evidence originally collected on August 31, 2026 rather than live. Reports are cached for 30 days. Every observation below is dated and cited.
What you can hold me to: every number cites its evidence and says where it came from, nothing unseen is guessed at, robots.txt is respected on every fetch, and when this tool can't read a site it says so instead of issuing a grade.
What was found — most fixable first
Ranked by impact × ease of fixing, not by category. Counts describe the pages actually read, and each finding cites them.
Your homepage share card is missing og:title, og:description, og:image
The homepage lacks og:title, og:description, og:image. When anyone — including your own employees — shares your homepage link, the preview card renders incomplete (no image means most platforms show a bare grey box).
Evidence: homepage HTML.
The fix: Add the missing tags to the homepage template: og:title, og:description, og:image. Minutes of work, visible on every share afterward.
Your careers page could not be retrieved
2 careers location(s) were tried (https://arlington.com/careers, https://arlington.com/jobs) and none returned a readable page. Candidates researching you through tools and AI assistants hit the same wall.
Evidence — careers page probes
- https://arlington.com/careers — HTTP 404
- https://arlington.com/jobs — HTTP 404
The fix: Serve a crawlable careers page at /careers and link it from the homepage.
No structured data on your homepage
The homepage carries no JSON-LD schema.org markup. Machine readers — search engines and AI assistants alike — get no structured statement of who you are (Organization, name, logo, sameAs profiles).
Evidence: homepage HTML.
The fix: Add an Organization JSON-LD block to the homepage: name, url, logo, and sameAs links to your official social profiles.
Your people are barely posting
In the licensed index, 1 of the 54 employees it has records for posted anything in the last 90 days (1.9%). That is a share of the index's coverage, not of your headcount. Across the 124 graded companies in this corpus with comparable counts the median is 6.1%. This is a third-party count and a lower bound — but the gap to the median is not a rounding error.
Evidence: licensed third-party index.
The fix: This is the gap an advocacy program closes directly. Start with the 1 decision-maker(s) who already post: give them something from your site worth sharing this week.
No company-page posts in the last 90 days — in the index
The licensed index holds 0 post(s) from your company page in total and none in the last 90 days. That may be index coverage rather than silence — during testing the index missed a company that posts weekly — so treat this as a prompt to check, not a verdict.
Evidence: licensed third-party index.
The fix: If the page really has gone quiet, employees have nothing of yours to amplify. A weekly cadence is the floor most graded companies clear.
No culture or life-at pages anywhere in your sitemap
Of 1 canonical URLs, zero classify as culture content — no life-at pages, employee stories, or team spotlights. This is the most common gap this tool finds, and the most directly advocacy-shaped one: it is the content employees share proudest and first. Your people's own posting is scored separately, below.
Evidence: sitemap URL classification.
The fix: Start small: one employee-story post a month, indexed in the sitemap. The section can grow from there.
Only 0 shareable pages on the whole site
After collapsing localized duplicates and filtering non-content pages, 0 pages of shareable content remain (of 1 canonical URLs). An advocacy program needs a supply of things worth sharing; below roughly 30 pages there is not enough material to run one, regardless of quality.
Evidence: sitemap URL classification.
The fix: Before any tooling, build the supply: a blog or insights section, case studies, or press — content a person would attach their name to.
What's already working
All tracked AI user-agents may read your site
robots.txt permits all 25 tracked AI user-agents at the site root, so AI search engines and assistants that honor robots.txt can read and cite you.
Evidence: robots.txt.
What could not be seen
Anything the reader could not observe is listed here rather than guessed at or silently skipped.
Content freshness is not observable here
Your sitemap publishes lastmod dates, but they look machine-generated rather than edit history (100% of all lastmod values fall on a single day (2024-09-10), which is the signature of a site-wide rebuild rather than individual edits.), so I cannot read them as freshness and have not guessed.
Evidence: sitemap lastmod analysis.
The fix: Emit real last-modified dates in the sitemap. Credible freshness data helps every machine reader — search, AI, and tools like this one — represent you accurately.
For the record
No llms.txt
No llms.txt file is served. This costs nothing today — the evidence that llms.txt affects anything is weak — so I do not count it against you.
Evidence: llms.txt fetch.
How the numbers break down
Weights: Content Supply 30% · Shareability 25% · Employee & Culture 25% (half what the site says, half what employees do) · AI Discoverability 20%. The weights are editorial judgment about what an advocacy program draws on — not the result of a study. Every row cites the observation behind it and says whether it was read from your site or from the licensed index.
Content Supply — 0/100 (reduced confidence)
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| Volume floor | 0/40 | 0 shareable pages after collapsing localized duplicates |
| Section diversity | 0/30 | 0 shareable section(s): none |
| Shareable share | 0/30 | 0% of the canonical inventory is shareable content |
Recency was not scored: this site publishes lastmod dates, but they look machine-generated rather than edit history, so they cannot be read as freshness.
Fewer than 30 shareable pages: there is not enough material for an advocacy program to run on, which caps this category regardless of quality.
Shareability — not scored
No content pages were sampled.
Employee & Culture — 8.3/100 (reduced confidence)
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| What the site says (50 of 100) | ||
| Culture / life-at pages | 0/15 | 0 culture page(s) in the canonical inventory |
| Careers page reachable | 0/7.5 | No careers page could be retrieved |
| Careers depth | 0/7.5 | 0 careers URL(s) in the sitemap |
| Named authors on content | 0/12.5 | Not measured — no content pages were retrieved |
| Employee-story signals | 0/7.5 | No culture URLs existed to sample, so no employee-story signal could be checked |
| What employees do (50 of 100) | ||
| Employees posting (last 90 days) | 1.6/25 | 1 of 54 indexed employees posted in the last 90 days (1.9%). licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable); 54 of 67 employees covered. |
| Decision-makers posting | 6.7/15 | 1 decision-makers posted in the last 90 days (1.9% of indexed employees). licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable). |
| Company page posting cadence | 0/10 | 0 company post(s) in the last 90 days in the index — none in the index, which is not proof the company does not post. licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable). |
Named-author coverage could not be measured because no content pages were retrieved; that component scored zero rather than being estimated.
A qualitative read of the careers page (boilerplate vs. real human stories) is not included in this number.
Half of this category is measured from employee posting activity in a licensed third-party index (54 of 67 employees covered). Those counts are records in a third-party index, a lower bound the visitor cannot verify independently; the other half is what the website itself shows.
AI Discoverability — 54/100 (reduced confidence)
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| AI crawler access | 45/45 | All 25 tracked AI user-agents are permitted at the site root |
| Content-Signal coherence | 9/15 | No Content-Signal declared. Neither a grant nor a restriction — scored neutrally. |
| Structured data | 0/40 | 0 schema.org type(s) on the homepage; article schema not measured |
| llms.txt | 0/0 | Not present. This costs nothing — the evidence that llms.txt affects anything is weak. |
robots.txt compliance is voluntary and advisory. This reports the declared policy; it is not a claim that any crawler was actually blocked.