AdSense Readiness Snapshot
Before you submit to Google, see your site through a reviewer's eyes. We flag "Thin Content" risks and missing trust signals before they cause a rejection.
Open snapshotPractical Diagnostic Tools
I built these tools to surface the specific signals that usually get sites rejected or de-indexed.
Duplicate Content Signal Snapshot
Search engines hate ambiguity. We identify intent overlap and clustering risks so you can stop competing with your own pages.
Review signalsTechnical Documentation
Explore the logic behind our audits. We map every check to official search and ad platform documentation to ensure transparency.
Read guidesThe "Technical Floor"
In the modern web, technical quality isn't a "bonus"—it's the minimum requirement to stay in the game.
I've seen too many sites with great content fail because their technical foundation was a mess. If your site lacks clear ownership (About), direct accountability (Contact), or transparent data handling (Privacy), you're signaling to every bot and reviewer that you’re not a serious player.
I built TEQH to automate the "boring but critical" parts of site audit. By focusing on Empirical Evidence—things like HTTP status codes, meta tags, and structural hierarchy—we remove the guesswork. Whether you’re a solo publisher or managing a fleet of sites, TEQH gives you a factual baseline to work from.
Transparency over Secrets
I don't have "insider secrets," and neither does TEQH. We have documentation and logic.
What TEQH actually does
- Public Signal Fetching: We see what any bot can see.
- Documentation Mapping: We link every finding to public guidance.
- Conflict Detection: We find where your code is lying to the crawlers.
What TEQH will never do
- No Approval Guarantees: I don't work for the ad networks; I can't grant access.
- No "Black Box" Guessing: If we can't measure it, we don't report it.
- No Automated Scores: I give you facts, not a feel-good number.
The Six Pillars of Diagnostic Quality
Every scan on this platform is built on these six deterministic dimensions.
- Accuracy
- Our Accuracy diagnostic engine performs a multi-stage validation of the server's response integrity to ensure that the delivered payload precisely matches the intended resource state. We begin by executing a high-precision HEAD request to capture the
DateandServerheaders, which we then cross-reference against the subsequent GET request to detect any "cloaking" or dynamic content switching that might trigger search engine transparency flags. The tool parses the HTTP status code (e.g., 200 OK, 301 Moved Permanently) and validates that theContent-Typeheader (typicallytext/html; charset=UTF-8) is correctly declared to prevent MIME-type sniffing vulnerabilities. We specifically look for "Soft 404" conditions where a server returns a 200 status code for a non-existent page, which violates Google’s Search Console quality standards. By analyzing theContent-Lengthvs. actual transferred bytes, we verify that the document hasn't been truncated or tampered with during transit, providing a deterministic proof of response accuracy and ensuring that your site isn't penalized for misleading server signals. - Completeness
- The Completeness audit module utilizes a recursive DOM traversal algorithm to verify the presence and configuration of every mandatory "Technical Floor" signal required for modern indexation and AdSense compliance. We don't just check for a
<title>tag; we measure its pixel width and character count against the latest SERP display limits and verify its uniqueness within the document hierarchy. The tool extracts and validates themeta description,og:image, andtwitter:cardproperties to ensure a complete social and search presence. Beyond meta tags, we scan the entire DOM for "trust signals" like the existence of links to/privacy-policy,/terms-of-service, and/about-uspages. We also parse the<head>forrel="canonical"andrel="alternate"(hreflang) tags to ensure that the internationalization and relationship graphs are fully defined. This comprehensive sweep ensures that no critical metadata is left missing, which is a primary cause for "Low Value Content" rejections in manual reviews, by confirming that every page provides the necessary context for both automated crawlers and human reviewers to understand the site's purpose and authority. - Consistency
- Consistency is measured through a rigorous comparison of overlapping signals found in the HTTP headers versus the HTML document body. Our engine identifies "signal friction" where the server sends conflicting instructions to a crawler. For example, we check if the
X-Robots-Tag: noindexheader is sent while the HTML contains<meta name="robots" content="index">, a common configuration error that leads to unpredictable indexing behavior. We also compare theLink: <...>; rel="canonical"HTTP header against the in-page<link rel="canonical">tag. If these do not match bit-for-bit, the tool flags a consistency violation. Furthermore, we analyze the relationship between theContent-Languageheader and the<html lang="...">attribute to ensure linguistic synchronization. By verifying that theLast-Modifiedheader aligns with any on-page "Updated On" timestamps, we provide a deterministic audit of the site’s internal data coherence, ensuring that search engines receive a unified, non-contradictory set of directives that reinforces the site's technical reliability and prevents the confusion that often results in lower crawl frequency or indexing errors. - Validity
- The Validity check employs a strict HTML5 parser to identify syntax errors, unclosed tags, and deprecated elements that could impede a crawler’s ability to build an accurate Document Object Model (DOM). We focus specifically on errors that break "tree construction," such as misplaced
<script>tags outside the<head>or<body>or nested interactive elements that violate ARIA standards. The tool also validates structured data (JSON-LD) against the official Schema.org vocabulary and Google’s specific requirements for Rich Results. We check for "DOM bloat"—excessive nesting depth—which can exhaust a crawler’s "render budget" and lead to partial indexing of content. By ensuring that the character encoding is explicitly and correctly declared in the first 1024 bytes of the document, we prevent "Mojibake" and ensure that the text content is perfectly parsable. This technical rigor ensures your code follows the strict standards expected by high-authority ad and search platforms, eliminating the technical friction that often masquerades as content quality issues during automated site evaluations. - Timeliness
- Our Timeliness diagnostic focuses on the "freshness signals" of your content, analyzing caching headers to ensure that both users and bots are receiving the most current version of your resource. We parse the
Cache-Controlheader for directives likemax-age,s-maxage,must-revalidate, andno-store. The tool calculates the "Age" of the resource by comparing theDateheader with the current system time and validates theETag(Entity Tag) to check for efficient conditional GET requests. We specifically look for "stale-while-revalidate" configurations that might serve outdated content to crawlers, potentially delaying the indexing of new updates. By checking for the presence of aVaryheader (e.g.,Vary: Accept-Encoding, User-Agent), we ensure that your server is correctly handling different versions of the page for mobile vs. desktop bots. This ensures that your site never triggers a "Low Value" flag due to serving stale, cached content that doesn't reflect your latest high-quality additions, maintaining a consistent flow of fresh signals to the search ecosystem. - Uniqueness
- The Uniqueness metric uses a "shingling" algorithm and fingerprinting to detect internal content overlap and "boilerplate" saturation that could trigger "Thin Content" or "Duplicate Content" penalties. We calculate the ratio of "Main Content" (MC) to "Supplementary Content" (SC) by stripping away navigation, footers, and sidebars to see if the core value proposition of the URL is unique. The tool checks for "Duplicate Intent" by comparing the target URL’s title and H1 against other known pages in your sitemap (if available) or via common directory patterns. We also analyze the use of the
rel="canonical"tag to see if it points to itself or a different URL; if it points elsewhere, we verify that the cross-page content is indeed substantially similar to justify the consolidation. By detecting "Template Bleed"—where too much generic text is shared across the entire domain—the tool provides a clear indicator of whether your page provides enough unique value to satisfy the "Helpful Content" criteria, ensuring that every indexed page serves a distinct and valuable purpose for the end-user.