I built a brutally honest SEO analyzer
I built a small SEO analyzer because most tools felt dishonest.
Instead of scores and vague advice, I wanted to see:
what Google actually sees when it crawls a page.
I tested it on a few real websites and the results were… uncomfortable.
Example:
• Missing canonical
• Broken H1 structure
• Thin content
• Bad metadata
I put it online so others can test their sites too.
No signup. First analyses are free.
Link: https://animiso.fun
Nice work , shipping is hard.
Curious: how are you handling spam / bot abuse on this yet?
Thanks!
Right now it’s a layered approach rather than a single gate:
• per-IP + per-user rate limits
• cooldowns between analyses
• credit-based usage (nothing unlimited)
• aggressive caching so repeat hits don’t amplify load
• blocking internal / suspicious URLs
It’s intentionally simple at this stage — if abuse shows up, CAPTCHA / CF bot rules are the next step.
Interesting that CAPTCHA is the “next step.”
What’s the threshold where you decide it’s worth adding despite the UX hit?
Right now we’re watching concrete abuse signals (repeat free-claims, credit drain patterns, abnormal analysis bursts).
As long as rate limits + credits keep abuse economically pointless, we avoid CAPTCHA.
The threshold is when automated usage starts creating real infra cost or polluting analytics — then we add friction only to those entry points, not the whole product.
That’s a really clean way to think about it: make abuse economically pointless first, then add friction only where it actually protects signal.
Out of curiosity, when you do hit that threshold, what would matter more to you:
keeping solve time minimal, or making sure the friction only ever shows up for a tiny % of users?
I’ve seen teams optimize for one and accidentally break the other, so I’m always curious how people think about that tradeoff.
If anyone wants, drop your site here — I’ll share what surprised me from the crawl.
I ran this on my own landing page and it flagged a missing canonical + weak H1 structure. That hurt, but that’s the point.