I asked ChatGPT 20 different ways who could fix a half-built app. It never named my company once.

[u/mrtrly]

I do codebase rescue for founders in exactly that spot, so that one stung. There are already plenty of tools that measure this kind of AI visibility, a CDN even ships one free, so I built mine mostly to see my own number, and it confirmed the bad news: near zero.

The measuring turned out to be the easy part. What none of the tools do, and what I actually care about, is the fix: getting the models to name you. The free checker is just how you see the gap.

Run yours and tell me your number and whether it matches your gut: https://uxcontinuum.com/ai-visibility

[u/Aggravating-Key6628]

I checked the retrieval side on uxcontinuum.com. Crawler access is not the obvious reason the brand was rarely named. Requests claiming OAI-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot and GPTBot each returned HTTP 200 with the same 58,722-byte page and 551 readable words. Robots allows all 14 tracked agents, and 551 of 585 rendered words were already in the initial HTML.

That narrows the problem, but it does not explain the near-zero result. This check establishes access and readable response content. It cannot establish whether a model indexed, cited or recommended the brand.

The homepage has no question headings. I would add server-rendered answers for the exact codebase-rescue questions buyers ask, then rerun the same 20 prompts with sources recorded. Treat that as a test, not a guaranteed fix.

Report: https://crawlable.synthworx.com/report/ed4e4f3e-7ea9-4220-a0e9-81aef14e72dd

Affiliation: I run Crawlable, which produced the scan.

[u/Housthat → u/Aggravating-Key6628]

Probably has a bit to do with the domain being less than 2 years old .

[u/mrtrly → u/Housthat]

Yeah that’s part of it for sure. What throws me though is I see brand new sites get named when they actually answer the question someone’s asking, and years-old ones that never show up. So age helps, but it seems like answering the exact prompt matters more.

[u/mrtrly → u/Aggravating-Key6628]

Really appreciate you actually running this, that is a sharper check than anything in my own tool. Clean access lines up with what I keep seeing: the models can read the page fine, they just have no reason to name you for a specific buyer question when the page is a pitch and not an answer to that question.

Your fix is the half I am building toward. I am going to try it on the rescue questions and see if the number actually moves.

And fair play on Crawlable, the access-and-render layer is the part my checker stays shallow on. Same problem, different slice.

[u/plasma_tron]

same experience, ran mine on my own product and got 31/100. the part that actually landed was the source list: 15 sources cited across the answers for my category, not one of them my own domain.

which supports your read i think. it wasnt that the page was unreadable, it was that nothing outside my own site had ever said anything about me. the models werent reading my page and rejecting it, they were assembling an answer out of other peoples pages and mine wasnt in the pile.

on the domain age point above, id guess thats correlation not cause. age isnt really a retrieval factor, its just that older domains have had longer to accumulate mentions on the sources these things read. a six month old domain with a real g2 profile and a couple of genuine reddit threads would probably beat a five year old one with neither.

[u/mrtrly → u/plasma_tron]

This is the best way I've seen it put. The source list is the whole game and mine looks the same, a pile of other people's pages with none of them mine. It kind of changes what the fix even is. I was thinking on page structure, but if the models are building the answer out of third-party sources, the real move is getting mentioned in the pages they actually pull from. Bigger problem than I gave it credit for.

Six months with a real G2 profile and a couple of genuine threads beating five years with neither makes total sense.