everyonesocial.com
Evidence collected August 31, 2026 · 31 polite, robots.txt-respecting requests · every claim cites what it saw
B
74.1/100 — advocacy readiness(reduced confidence: parts of the evidence were unobservable — see below)
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 Content-Signal grants what your robots.txt forbids
robots.txt declares a Content-Signal that grants a use requiring the site to be read, while disallowing AI user-agents of exactly the kind that grant depends on: Amazonbot. A machine reading your policy gets two opposite answers.
Evidence: robots.txt.
The fix: Decide which statement is the policy and make the other match: either remove the disallow lines for the agent kinds the signal grants, or narrow the Content-Signal to the uses you actually permit.
9 AI user-agents are blocked at your site root
robots.txt disallows 9 of 25 tracked AI user-agents at the root: GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended, Amazonbot, meta-externalagent, CCBot, Bytespider, CloudflareBrowserRenderingCrawler. The list exactly matches Cloudflare’s one-click "block AI bots" default, which often means a toggle was flipped rather than a policy decided. This is a tradeoff, not a mistake: blocking protects content from training use, and costs visibility in AI search and assistants that cite sources. robots.txt is advisory, so this describes your declared policy, not enforcement.
Evidence: robots.txt.
The fix: Confirm the block is a decision rather than a default. If AI answer engines matter to how buyers and candidates find you, consider allowing search- and user-fetch-kind agents while keeping training bots blocked — the two can be set independently.
No company-page posts in the last 90 days — in the index
The licensed index holds 39 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 629 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.
What's already working
19 of 24 sampled pages name their author
79.2% of sampled content pages carry a named human author — employees are already visible in the work, which is the raw material of advocacy.
Evidence: content page sample — 19 of 24 sampled pages.
Your homepage share card is complete
The homepage carries og:title, og:description and og:image, so a shared homepage link renders a full preview card.
Evidence: homepage HTML.
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 carries no lastmod dates, so I cannot see how fresh your content is 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 — 75.9/100 (reduced confidence)
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| Volume floor | 26.9/40 | 547 shareable pages after collapsing localized duplicates |
| Section diversity | 19/30 | 4 shareable section(s): blog, case_study, resource, event_webinar |
| Shareable share | 30/30 | 87% of the canonical inventory is shareable content |
Recency was not scored: this sitemap carries no lastmod dates at all. Content freshness is not observable here and has not been guessed at.
Shareability — 93.8/100
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| Open Graph image — without one, a shared link renders as a bare grey box | 35/35 | 24 of 24 sampled pages (100%) |
| Open Graph title on the shared card | 15/15 | 24 of 24 sampled pages (100%) |
| Open Graph description on the shared card | 15/15 | 24 of 24 sampled pages (100%) |
| A visible share control on the page | 23.8/30 | 19 of 24 sampled pages (79.2%) |
| Twitter/X card tags (near-zero weight: X falls back to Open Graph) | 3/3 | 24 of 24 sampled pages (100%) |
| Canonical URL (near-zero weight: SEO hygiene, not a sharing condition) | 2/2 | 24 of 24 sampled pages (100%) |
Employee & Culture — 59.3/100
| 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 | 5/7.5 | 5 careers URL(s) in the sitemap |
| Named authors on content | 9.9/12.5 | 79.2% 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) | 21.9/25 | 7 of 34 indexed employees posted in the last 90 days (20.6%). licensed third-party index (not independently verifiable); 34 of 88 employees covered. |
| Decision-makers posting | 15/15 | 4 decision-makers posted in the last 90 days (11.8% 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). |
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 (34 of 88 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 — 65.2/100
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| AI crawler access | 35.3/45 | 9 of 25 tracked AI user-agents are disallowed at the site root: GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended, Amazonbot, meta-externalagent, CCBot, Bytespider, CloudflareBrowserRenderingCrawler |
| Content-Signal coherence | 3/15 | Content-Signal "search=yes,ai-train=no,use=reference" grants a use that requires reading the site, while 1 AI user-agent(s) of exactly the kind that grant depends on are disallowed from reading it: Amazonbot. |
| Structured data | 26.9/40 | 1 schema.org type(s) on the homepage; 91.7% 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.
The blocked-agent list exactly matches Cloudflare’s one-click "block AI bots" default, which often means a toggle was flipped rather than a policy decided.