We Scored Our Own Site 8 out of 100. Here's How We Got to 100.

We took aeobob.com from an AEO audit score of 8 out of 100 to 91 by making its answers clearer, its structure more explicit and its pages accessible without JavaScript. The work included direct answers, better headings, structured data and static HTML.

This post covers both stages: the site changes that took us from 8 to 91, and the scorer fix that took us to 100.

Scoring your own site badly is uncomfortable when you sell a product that helps people improve theirs. But that made the result useful: we had a concrete reason to examine whether our own pages followed the advice we were giving.

These are scores from the AEO Bob audit, not scores assigned by Google or an AI assistant. The results table also records ideabob.com moving from 8 to 89 and paulrodneyturner.com moving from 86 to 98, all out of 100. This post covers the changes made on aeobob.com, not an explanation of the other sites' results.

We'll show you the work behind our change.

What does moving from 8 to 91 actually tell us?

It tells us the site scored better against the audit's checks after the changes. A higher audit score doesn't prove more traffic, leads or AI citations, and we're not presenting it as evidence of those outcomes.

That distinction matters because a score is a diagnostic tool, not the destination. You can use it to identify work worth investigating, but you still need to read the page, inspect its HTML and decide whether the result helps a real visitor.

The changes we made fall into three practical groups:

• Clearer content: a short answer under the main heading, descriptive question-style headings, lists, shorter paragraphs and complete sentences.
• Explicit context: an FAQ with matching FAQPage JSON-LD, plus Organization, WebSite, SoftwareApplication and Service JSON-LD.
• Accessible delivery: static homepage HTML, prerendered pages for other routes and an llms.txt file.

We didn't isolate each change in a controlled test. We can't tell you that adding an FAQ contributed a particular portion of the improvement, or that an llms.txt file caused the final score. The result belongs to the package of changes, not a made-up breakdown.

It's also not an argument for abandoning SEO. Descriptive headings, accessible HTML, useful content and appropriate canonical URLs are relevant to search engines as well as answer systems. AEO adds an AI-focused layer to that foundation.

If those terms feel interchangeable, our SEO vs AEO comparison explains the distinction. For this project, the useful question wasn't which label to choose. It was whether a person or crawler could find, understand and accurately describe what the site offered.

How did we make the content easier to understand?

We added a short, direct answer immediately under the H1. That gives the page a clear explanation near the top instead of asking a reader to assemble the answer from separate marketing sections.

A headline can introduce an idea without explaining it. The paragraph underneath should do the explanatory work: what the offering is, who it's for and what it helps them do. That is a useful editing test even when you're not thinking about AI.

Make headings carry meaning

We changed H2s to descriptive, question-style headings. A heading should tell you what the next section answers before you read the section itself.

That doesn't mean forcing a question mark onto every label. Use questions where they reflect something a visitor would genuinely ask, and make sure the text underneath answers them. A precise statement is better than an awkward question written only to satisfy a checklist.

Give steps and related points a clear shape

We added bulleted and numbered lists. Bullets work for related items, while numbered lists make sense when order matters. Neither is a substitute for explaining an idea, but both can prevent useful details from disappearing inside a long paragraph.

We also shortened paragraphs and used complete sentences. Shorter shouldn't mean cryptic: a sentence still needs enough context to make sense when someone encounters it outside the surrounding sales copy.

Here's the editing sequence we'd use on another site:

1. Read the main heading and opening paragraph together. Check whether they explain the page's purpose.
2. Scan only the section headings. Check whether they describe the questions the page answers.
3. Turn genuine steps or grouped items into lists.
4. Split dense paragraphs without breaking the connection between ideas.
5. Replace fragments and vague references with complete, specific sentences.

That's clarity work, not an invitation to repeat keywords or rewrite every sentence into the same bland voice.

What structured data did we add, and why?

We added an FAQ with matching FAQPage JSON-LD. The visible questions and answers matter first; the structured data describes that same material in a machine-readable format.

The word “matching” is important. If a question or answer changes on the page, its structured version should change too. Maintaining two conflicting versions of your explanation defeats the point of making the page easier to interpret.

We also added structured data describing the organization, website, software and service. Those are related things, but they aren't interchangeable:

• Organization: identifies the organization behind the site.
• WebSite: describes the website as a whole.
• SoftwareApplication: describes the software offering.
• Service: describes the service offering.

The practical rule is to describe what actually exists. Don't copy every schema type you can find or add properties that make claims your visible content doesn't support. More markup isn't automatically better markup.

Keep the page and its markup in agreement

We would check structured data in two ways: whether it's valid, and whether it's true to the page. A syntactically valid description can still contain an outdated offering, the wrong URL or wording that contradicts what visitors see.

Search engines apply their own eligibility rules for FAQ markup and special search appearances.

What this work gives you is an explicit description alongside the human-readable explanation. It reduces avoidable ambiguity without replacing good copy, trustworthy information or the rest of your SEO work.

That's the approach behind Why AEO Is the Next Layer on Top of SEO: keep the useful foundation, then improve how clearly answer systems can interpret it.

How did we make the pages accessible without JavaScript?

We created a static HTML copy of the homepage for crawlers that don't run JavaScript. A page can look complete in your browser while depending on client-side execution to reveal its important content. Not every crawler processes that experience the same way.

The goal wasn't to show crawlers a different sales pitch. It was to make the homepage's content available without requiring JavaScript execution. A static copy needs to stay aligned with the page people actually use.

For every other route, we added a prerendered static page with its own title, description and canonical. That addresses the site beyond the homepage: each route needs to stand on its own as a meaningful page.

Check individual routes, not just the front door

When reviewing a similar implementation, we would inspect the returned HTML for each important route. Seeing the right page after navigating through the site isn't enough to establish what a crawler receives when it requests that URL directly.

• Is the route's main content present without JavaScript execution?
• Does its title describe that page rather than repeat a generic site label?
• Does its description fit the content?
• Does its canonical identify the intended canonical URL?
• Will content edits reach the static or prerendered version too?

We also added an llms.txt file. Treat that as a supplementary resource alongside accessible pages.

If you're tackling this yourself, start with clarity and accessibility rather than chasing the final score. Then check structured data, audit again and inspect what changed. The AEO Bob guides can help with setup, scores and AI suggestions, but a human review still matters. A better number is useful; a clearer, accessible site is the work behind it.

How did we get from 91 to 100?

The last nine points didn't come from editing our pages. They came from fixing our own audit. It had been missing benefits written in plain language, ignoring short words in page titles, and measuring paragraphs incorrectly when headings and lists sat between them. Once we corrected the scorer in October 2026, the same homepage scored 100 out of 100. We'd rather tell you that than pretend a few more edits did it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What changed when aeobob.com went from 8 to 100?

We went from 8 to 91 by improving the opening answer, headings, lists, FAQ and paragraph structure, adding matching structured data, and making our pages accessible through static HTML, prerendering and an llms.txt file. The move from 91 to 100 came from fixing our own audit's scorer in October 2026: it had missed plain-language benefits and short words in titles, and measured paragraphs incorrectly around headings and lists. The same homepage then scored 100 out of 100.

Does a higher AEO score guarantee AI citations?

No. An audit score reflects the checks used by that audit, not a commitment from an AI assistant. The move from 8 to 91 doesn't establish traffic growth or additional citations, and those outcomes aren't claimed here.

Was llms.txt responsible for the improvement?

We can't attribute the improvement to that file. It was part of a broader set of changes, and we didn't isolate its effect. Accessible content, clear explanations and accurate structured data deserve attention regardless of whether a particular system uses llms.txt.

Should every website add the same schema types?

No. Use structured data that accurately describes your organization, pages and offerings. SoftwareApplication and Service were relevant to this site, but they aren't a universal checklist. Any FAQPage markup should match the questions and answers visitors can read.

Should SEO be replaced with AEO?

No. AEO is an AI-focused layer on top of good SEO. Useful content, crawlable pages, descriptive titles and sound technical implementation still matter. Start by making your site understandable and accessible, then address the additional needs of answer systems.

Want to check your own site?

Run the free AEO audit at https://audit.aeobob.com to see your score and get ready-to-paste fixes. Using WordPress? AEO Bob Lite is free on WordPress.org. Rather have it done for you? Our done-for-you fixes start at $497.