I rebuilt my website audit report around one question: “What should I fix first?”
Hey everyone — I’ve been building GazeRank, a website health platform that combines SEO, performance, accessibility, content, and AI search visibility into one report.
The biggest thing I’ve been working on recently isn't adding more metrics.
It’s making the report actually useful after the scan finishes.
Most website audit tools give you a huge list of problems:
47 SEO issues
18 accessibility issues
Core Web Vitals
missing metadata
technical warnings
etc.
But then you're left wondering:
“Okay… what do I actually fix first?”
So I’ve been redesigning GazeRank around that question.
What the new report does
A scan now gives you:
- Overall website health score
A simple score to understand the site's current state.
- Category scores
SEO
Performance
Accessibility
Content
AI Search Visibility
- AI visibility analysis
Instead of treating “AI SEO” as a vague marketing term, I'm breaking it down into actual signals.
For example:
crawler access
structured data
content structure
internal linking
FAQ/schema signals
author information
AI platform readiness
brand/citation/recommendation signals
The report separately analyzes platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini.
- Prioritized fixes
Instead of dumping every finding on the user, the report surfaces the issues that should be addressed first.
Each finding explains:
what is wrong
why it matters
affected page
recommended fix
implementation instructions
verification/rescan
- Evidence
I'm also adding evidence views so that when the report says something like:
“ChatGPT visibility: 50/100”
you can actually open the evidence and see why.
That's important to me because I don't want GazeRank to become another black-box “AI score.”
One interesting thing I've learned
Building the scanner was easier than building a report people can actually understand.
It's relatively easy to collect 100+ technical signals.
The difficult part is deciding:
Which 3 things should the user care about right now?
That's where most of my recent product work has gone.
What I'm looking for
I'd love feedback from founders, developers, SEO people and agency owners:
When you run a website audit, what information do you actually want to see immediately after the scan?
And more importantly:
What makes you trust an audit result enough to actually fix the issue?
I'm especially interested in feedback on the report UX and the AI visibility evidence.
GazeRank: https://gazerank.com
Prioritising the findings seems much harder than collecting them.
One thing I’d find useful is a clear separation between what the scan can prove and what it is inferring. “The contact form returned an error” is verifiable. “This is costing you leads” might be reasonable, but it’s still an assumption.
I’d probably trust the report more if those were displayed differently. Have you considered adding evidence or confidence labels to each finding?
That’s a very good point. Prioritization shouldn’t blur the line between what the scan can directly verify and what is an informed estimate.
I’m planning to make that distinction much clearer in the report — separating verified findings from inferred impact, and showing supporting evidence or confidence for each recommendation.
For a verified issue, the report should show the actual evidence from the scan. For an impact statement, it should make clear that it’s an estimate based on the evidence, rather than presenting it as a fact.
Thanks for raising this. Trust and transparency need to be part of the prioritization system, not an afterthought. If you have any more thoughts, I’d love to hear them.
Seems like a nice tool, I used to do all these fixes/corrections manually for my landing page
Thanks for trying it! That’s exactly the problem I’m trying to solve—many of these fixes are manageable, but figuring out what to prioritize and how to implement each one can take a lot of time manually. I hope GazeRank makes that process clearer and faster.
I haven't tried it (yet), can i quickly test this with no friction?
Do you provide a trial or free tier?
Absolutely—there’s no signup, email capture, or payment required to try it. Just paste a website URL into Gazerank and run a scan.
The free tier currently includes up to 5 scans per month, so you can test it quickly on your own landing page and see the full report. I’d love to hear whether the findings and prioritization feel useful.
The strongest change is moving from “here are 100 problems” to “here are the few things worth fixing first.” The evidence layer is important too—especially for AI visibility, where a score without showing what produced it is hard to trust.
Exactly — that’s the direction I’m trying to take it. A score by itself isn’t very useful if the user can’t understand what caused it or what to do next.
I’m especially focused on making the AI visibility results evidence-based, so you can drill into the signals behind each platform’s score rather than just seeing “50/100.”
Still refining the prioritization layer, so feedback like this is really helpful. Thanks
That makes sense. The evidence layer should make the prioritization much easier to trust as you refine it.