longjohn.com
Evidence collected August 31, 2026 · 3 polite, robots.txt-respecting requests · every claim cites what it saw
No letter grade — withheld, not failed
This site disallows this crawler at the root, so only its robots.txt could be read. A letter grade would be an invented verdict rather than a measurement, so none is issued.
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.
23 AI user-agents are blocked at your site root
robots.txt disallows 23 of 25 tracked AI user-agents at the root: GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-User, Claude-SearchBot, anthropic-ai, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, Perplexity-User, Applebot, Applebot-Extended, Amazonbot, meta-externalagent, Meta-ExternalFetcher, CCBot, Bytespider, cohere-ai, YouBot, DuckAssistBot, Diffbot, ImagesiftBot, 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.
What could not be seen
Anything the reader could not observe is listed here rather than guessed at or silently skipped.
Your robots.txt blocks this crawler — so this report covers robots.txt only
Your robots.txt disallows this crawler at the site root. I honor that: nothing beyond robots.txt itself was fetched, and no grade is issued, because a grade earned by being unreadable would be an invented verdict. Worth knowing: a broad disallow like this also governs how other honest crawlers and AI agents treat you. That may be exactly the policy you want — it protects content and reduces scraping load — or it may be broader than intended.
Evidence — robots.txt
User-agent: GooglebotDisallow: /info/Disallow: /search/User-agent: Mediapartners-GoogleDisallow: /info/Disallow: /search/User-agent: Yahoo! SlurpAllow: /$Disallow: /
The fix: If the broad block is deliberate, no action. If not, scope the disallow rules to the specific bots or paths you mean to restrict.
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 — not scored
No sitemap URLs were retrieved, so content volume could not be measured.
Shareability — not scored
No content pages were sampled.
Employee & Culture — not scored
No sitemap URLs were retrieved.
AI Discoverability — 14.3/100 (reduced confidence)
| Signal | Points | What was observed |
|---|---|---|
| AI crawler access | 5.3/45 | 23 of 25 tracked AI user-agents are disallowed at the site root: GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-User, Claude-SearchBot, anthropic-ai, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, Perplexity-User, Applebot, Applebot-Extended, Amazonbot, meta-externalagent, Meta-ExternalFetcher, CCBot, Bytespider, cohere-ai, YouBot, DuckAssistBot, Diffbot, ImagesiftBot, CloudflareBrowserRenderingCrawler |
| 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.
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.