collegeboard.org
Evidence collected August 31, 2026 · 28 polite, robots.txt-respecting requests · every claim cites what it saw
F
35.8/100 — advocacy readiness
Graded because the reader classified enough of this site to trust the measurement. For scale: of the 350 companies in this corpus, only 126 earned a grade — for the rest I withheld it rather than grade a site the reader could not read.
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
The homepage lacks og:title, og:description. When anyone — including your own employees — shares your homepage link, the preview card renders incomplete.
Evidence: homepage HTML.
The fix: Add the missing tags to the homepage template: og:title, og:description. Minutes of work, visible on every share afterward.
0 of 6 sampled pages carry a visible share control
None of the 6 content pages sampled carry a visible share control. Nothing on the page invites a reader — or an employee — to share it.
Evidence — content page sample
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/data-layout-templates
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/design-use-guides/get-instructions-aces-study
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/design-use-guides/understanding-aces-study
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/study-design-guides
- https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/scholarships/fsf-case-study-scholarship
The fix: Add share links or buttons to the content template. Plain links to the platform share endpoints work without any tracking script.
0 of 6 sampled pages carry Article structured data
None of the 6 content pages sampled carry Article structured data. Machine readers cannot tell these pages are articles, or when they were published, or by whom.
Evidence — content page sample
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/data-layout-templates
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/design-use-guides/get-instructions-aces-study
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/design-use-guides/understanding-aces-study
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/study-design-guides
- https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/scholarships/fsf-case-study-scholarship
The fix: Emit Article (or BlogPosting) JSON-LD with headline, datePublished and author in the content template.
0 of 6 sampled pages name a human author
None of the 6 sampled content pages carry a named human author — no byline, no author schema, no rel=author. Content nobody signs is content nobody feels ownership of; advocacy runs on employees being visible in the work.
Evidence: content page sample — 0 of 6 sampled pages.
The fix: Add author bylines to content pages — a name, ideally with a link or an author block in the Article schema. Start with new posts; backfilling can wait.
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.
Only 1 of 6 sampled pages carry a share description (og:description)
1 of 6 sampled content pages (16.7%) carry a share description (og:description); the rest do not. The preview card shows the title with no supporting line.
Evidence — content page sample
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/data-layout-templates
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/design-use-guides/get-instructions-aces-study
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/design-use-guides/understanding-aces-study
- https://aces.collegeboard.org/resources/study-design-guides
The fix: Emit the post excerpt as og:description in the template.
No culture or life-at pages anywhere in your sitemap
Of 60,000 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 6 shareable pages on the whole site
After collapsing localized duplicates and filtering non-content pages, 6 pages of shareable content remain (of 60,000 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.
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 — 12.6/100
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| Volume floor | 1.8/40 | 6 shareable pages after collapsing localized duplicates |
| Section diversity | 9/30 | 2 shareable section(s): case_study, resource |
| Shareable share | 0/30 | 0% of the canonical inventory is shareable content |
| Recency adjustment | 1.8/8 | 1600 of 4410 dated URLs updated in the last year (36%) |
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 — 42.5/100
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| Open Graph image — without one, a shared link renders as a bare grey box | 35/35 | 6 of 6 sampled pages (100%) |
| Open Graph title on the shared card | 2.5/15 | 1 of 6 sampled pages (16.7%) |
| Open Graph description on the shared card | 2.5/15 | 1 of 6 sampled pages (16.7%) |
| A visible share control on the page | 0/30 | 0 of 6 sampled pages (0%) |
| Twitter/X card tags (near-zero weight: X falls back to Open Graph) | 0.5/3 | 1 of 6 sampled pages (16.7%) |
| Canonical URL (near-zero weight: SEO hygiene, not a sharing condition) | 2/2 | 6 of 6 sampled pages (100%) |
Employee & Culture — 42.5/100
| 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 | 7.5/7.5 | A careers page was found and retrieved |
| Careers depth | 7.5/7.5 | 3692 careers URL(s) in the sitemap |
| Named authors on content | 0/12.5 | 0% of sampled pages carry a named author |
| 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) | 12/25 | 308 of 3318 indexed employees posted in the last 90 days (9.3%). licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable); 3318 of 6352 employees covered. |
| Decision-makers posting | 10.8/15 | 117 decision-makers posted in the last 90 days (3.5% of indexed employees). licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable). |
| Company page posting cadence | 4.6/10 | 60 company post(s) in the last 90 days in the index. licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable). |
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 (3318 of 6352 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
| 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; 0% of sampled content pages carry Article schema |
| 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.