Interpreting Your Scan Results
Understand what your SourceRank scan results mean and how to prioritize improvements for maximum AI visibility impact.
Understanding Your Scan Report
After running a SourceRank scan, you’ll receive a comprehensive report analyzing your website’s AI engine optimization. This guide helps you understand what each section means and how to act on the insights.
The Scan Results Page
Your results are organized into four main sections:
1. Overall AEO Score
The big number at the top (0-100) represents your overall AI Engine Optimization score.
What it tells you: How well-optimized your website is for AI answer engines overall.
How to interpret:
- 80-100: Excellent - You’re in great shape
- 60-79: Good - Solid foundation with room for improvement
- 40-59: Fair - Significant opportunities available
- 0-39: Poor - Major optimization needed
See our Understanding Your AEO Score guide for detailed score explanations.
2. Component Breakdown
Four category scores show where you excel and where you need work:
Content Quality (out of 30)
- Measures clarity, depth, and answer-focused structure
- Most impactful for improving AI citations
- Easiest to improve through content updates
Technical Setup (out of 25)
- Structured data, llms.txt, meta tags
- Quick wins often available here
- Requires some technical knowledge
Source Credibility (out of 25)
- Domain authority, expertise signals
- Takes time to build
- Focuses on trustworthiness
Site Structure (out of 20)
- Internal linking, organization, crawlability
- Medium difficulty to improve
- Long-term strategic work
3. Prioritized Recommendations
Actionable improvements sorted by impact and difficulty:
Critical Issues 🚨
- Fix immediately
- Causing significant score loss
- Often technical problems
High-Impact Improvements 📈
- Address next
- Best ROI for effort
- Quick wins
Optimization Opportunities 🎯
- Long-term improvements
- Incremental gains
- Strategic enhancements
Maintenance Items ✅
- Nice-to-haves
- Polish and refinement
- Lower priority
4. Detailed Findings
In-depth analysis of what we found:
- Specific pages analyzed
- Issues detected
- Positive elements identified
- Comparison to best practices
Reading Component Scores
Content Quality Indicators
High scores (24-30) mean you’re:
- Writing clear, comprehensive content
- Answering questions directly
- Using good structure and formatting
- Providing unique value
Low scores (0-15) suggest:
- Content is unclear or too complex
- Missing direct answers to questions
- Poor formatting and structure
- Thin or duplicate content
How to improve:
- Add FAQ sections answering common questions
- Use clear headings and bullet points
- Write at 8th-grade reading level
- Add unique insights and examples
Technical Setup Indicators
High scores (20-25) mean you have:
- Proper llms.txt implementation
- Comprehensive structured data
- Optimized meta tags
- Clean semantic HTML
Low scores (0-12) suggest:
- Missing llms.txt file
- No or limited structured data
- Poor meta tag optimization
- HTML structure issues
How to improve:
- Create llms.txt (setup guide)
- Add JSON-LD schema markup
- Optimize title tags and meta descriptions
- Use semantic HTML elements
Source Credibility Indicators
High scores (20-25) mean you have:
- Established domain authority
- Clear author credentials
- Quality backlinks
- Strong E-E-A-T signals
Low scores (0-12) suggest:
- New or low-authority domain
- Missing author information
- Few quality backlinks
- Weak trust signals
How to improve:
- Add detailed author bios
- Cite authoritative sources
- Build quality backlinks
- Showcase credentials and awards
Site Structure Indicators
High scores (16-20) mean you have:
- Logical internal linking
- Clear content organization
- Good navigation
- Fast, mobile-friendly site
Low scores (0-10) suggest:
- Poor internal linking
- Confusing site structure
- Navigation issues
- Performance problems
How to improve:
- Create topic clusters with pillar content
- Add breadcrumb navigation
- Improve internal linking
- Optimize site speed
Understanding Recommendations
Critical Issues
These are serious problems hurting your score significantly.
Example: “llms.txt file not found”
Why it matters: AI engines can’t find basic information about your site, leading to poor understanding and inaccurate citations.
Impact: -10 to -15 points
How to fix: Create llms.txt (guide)
Time to fix: 15-30 minutes
High-Impact Improvements
Significant score gains with reasonable effort.
Example: “Add structured data to blog posts”
Why it matters: Structured data helps AI engines understand your content type, authorship, and context.
Impact: +8 to +12 points
How to fix: Implement JSON-LD schema for articles
Time to fix: 1-2 hours for initial setup
Optimization Opportunities
Long-term improvements for incremental gains.
Example: “Improve internal linking structure”
Why it matters: Helps AI engines discover all your content and understand relationships between topics.
Impact: +3 to +5 points
How to fix: Audit and enhance internal links site-wide
Time to fix: Ongoing effort
Maintenance Items
Polish and refinement for marginal gains.
Example: “Update publish dates on older content”
Why it matters: Shows content is current and maintained.
Impact: +1 to +2 points
How to fix: Add or update timestamps
Time to fix: 30 minutes per article
Comparing Before and After
When you rescan after making improvements:
What to Look For
Overall Score Change
- Did it increase as expected?
- Which component improved most?
- Any unexpected decreases?
Recommendation Progress
- Which issues were fixed?
- Which remain?
- Any new issues introduced?
Specific Metrics
- llms.txt detected?
- Structured data recognized?
- Content quality improved?
Normal Improvement Rates
Week 1: 5-15 point increase
- Quick technical wins implemented
- llms.txt added
- Meta tags optimized
Month 1: 15-30 point increase
- Comprehensive technical improvements
- Initial content updates
- Some credibility building
Month 3: 25-40 point increase
- Major content overhaul
- Credibility signals established
- Site structure optimized
Month 6: 35-50 point increase
- Full AEO maturity
- Ongoing optimization
- Competitive position solidified
Common Result Patterns
Pattern 1: High Technical, Low Content
What it means: Good technical setup but weak content.
Typical scores:
- Content: 12/30
- Technical: 22/25
- Credibility: 15/25
- Structure: 14/20
Focus on:
- Improving content clarity
- Adding FAQ sections
- Expanding topic coverage
- Writing more comprehensively
Pattern 2: High Content, Low Technical
What it means: Great content but missing technical optimization.
Typical scores:
- Content: 25/30
- Technical: 10/25
- Credibility: 18/25
- Structure: 15/20
Focus on:
- Adding llms.txt
- Implementing structured data
- Optimizing meta tags
- Technical SEO basics
Pattern 3: Low Credibility, Everything Else Good
What it means: New site or limited authority signals.
Typical scores:
- Content: 22/30
- Technical: 20/25
- Credibility: 8/25
- Structure: 16/20
Focus on:
- Building backlinks
- Adding author credentials
- Getting cited by authoritative sites
- Establishing expertise
Pattern 4: Balanced But Low Overall
What it means: Consistent gaps across all areas.
Typical scores:
- Content: 15/30
- Technical: 12/25
- Credibility: 12/25
- Structure: 10/20
Focus on:
- Start with technical quick wins
- Then improve content
- Build credibility gradually
- Optimize structure
Taking Action
Prioritization Framework
Use this framework to decide what to tackle first:
1. Fix Critical Issues (Day 1)
- Missing llms.txt
- Major technical errors
- Crawl blocks
- Broken structured data
2. Quick Wins (Week 1)
- Add basic llms.txt
- Optimize meta tags
- Fix obvious content issues
- Improve key pages
3. High-Impact Projects (Month 1)
- Comprehensive structured data
- Content quality overhaul
- Enhanced llms.txt
- Author credibility building
4. Strategic Initiatives (Months 2-6)
- Site structure optimization
- Content expansion
- Link building
- Competitive positioning
Creating an Action Plan
- List all recommendations from your scan
- Group by category: Critical, High-Impact, Optimization, Maintenance
- Estimate effort for each item
- Assign owners if working with a team
- Set deadlines based on priority
- Track progress and rescan regularly
Measuring Success
Leading Indicators (you can control):
- Recommendations implemented
- Technical issues resolved
- Content pages updated
- Backlinks acquired
Lagging Indicators (results):
- AEO score increases
- More accurate AI citations
- Higher citation frequency
- Improved competitive position
Troubleshooting Unexpected Results
Score Didn’t Improve After Changes
Possible reasons:
- Changes need time to be recognized (rescan after 24-48 hours)
- Changes implemented incorrectly
- Other issues introduced
- Competitors also improved
What to do:
- Verify changes are live and correct
- Wait and rescan
- Check for new issues
- Review implementation quality
Score Decreased
Possible reasons:
- New technical issues introduced
- Content quality degraded
- Backlinks lost
- AI engine algorithm update
What to do:
- Compare to previous scan details
- Check what changed
- Review error logs
- Contact support if unclear
Specific Recommendation Still Showing
Possible reasons:
- Fix not implemented correctly
- Cache hasn’t cleared
- Related issue still present
What to do:
- Double-check implementation
- Wait 24-48 hours and rescan
- Verify using validation tools
- Ask for support review
Getting Help
If you’re unsure how to interpret your results:
Free Resources
- Understanding Your AEO Score - Detailed score explanations
- llms.txt Setup - Most common quick win
- What is AEO? - Comprehensive AEO guide
- SourceRank Blog - Strategies and tutorials
Support
- Email: support@sourcerank.app
- Response time: Within 24 hours
- Include your scan ID for faster help
Next Steps
Now that you understand your results:
- Prioritize improvements using the framework above
- Start with critical issues for immediate impact
- Implement high-impact items for best ROI
- Rescan regularly to track progress
- Iterate continuously - AEO is ongoing
Run another scan to track your progress or sign up for monitoring to automate the process!