Site verdict: Solid with gaps. The commercial pages and the new post hold up well, but the SEO Hacks archive (19 posts from 2015–2017, indexable and in the sitemap) is the weakest page type and weighs heavily on such a small site.
One representative page audited per page type, judging only the main content (MC). Sources: HTML generated in dist/ (4 Oct 2026), a live check of nachomascort.com, and searches for the target queries. The score is a heuristic for prioritizing, not a Google grade.
Summary
| Page type | Page audited | Score | Commodity class | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home | / | 11/16 | Non-commodity | Solid with gaps |
| Services | /servicios/consultoria-seo-geo/ | 9/16 | Partly commodity | Solid with gaps |
| Case studies | /casos/softonic-0-a-20-millones/ | 9/16 | Non-commodity | Solid with gaps |
| Tools | /herramientas/comprobador-bots/ | 11/16 | Partly commodity | Solid with gaps |
| New blog (2026) | /blog/quality-google-core-updates/ | 12/16 | Non-commodity | Solid with gaps |
| SEO Hacks archive | /blog/que-es-thin-content/ | 5/16 | Commodity | At risk |
No page reaches “Strong” (13+). The closest is the quality post; the furthest is the archive.
1. Home
Verdict: Solid with gaps (11/16, non-commodity). It is a personal page with a track record and original figures; the gap is that the strongest claims cannot be verified from the page.
Purpose: introduce Nacho Mascort and turn visits into calls or contacts. YMYL: no.
| Pillar | Score | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | 3/4 | Detailed track record (UPF 2015–2024, Webpositer since 2018), 4 case studies with figures, a course with data (450+ students, 80+ videos). Handmade and tailored. | Nothing urgent. |
| Originality | 3/4 | Everything is first person: Softonic, word.tips, Reverse Tech, the ad factory (200 → 3.000+ creatividades/semana). It does not exist on any other site. | Nothing urgent. |
| Talent or skill | 3/4 | Clear structure: promise, social proof, services, case studies, teaching, contact. It quickly answers “why you?”. | Nothing urgent. |
| Accuracy | 2/4 | “Me contrataron ex ingenieros de Google Search” is the main hook and has no name or link. “Me han citado: Google Search Central” appears with a logo, when on /sobre-mi/ it is a “Mención” in a 2022 community recap. “Más de ocho años enseñando” contradicts the page’s own line “UPF 2015–2024” (that is over 10). | Link to or specify the former engineers claim (even as “project X, with permission”), link each “Me han citado” logo to the specific piece, and correct the years of teaching. |
Commodity
- Swap test: if you swap the name for another consultant’s, the page loses everything. Non-commodity.
- Top 10 test: not checked (brand page, navigational query).
- Assets only you have: case studies with figures, track record, own course, tools.
- Angle to strengthen: link each figure to the case study that proves it (it already does this in part).
Red flags: none found. No popups or interstitials; the contact form sits at the end.
2. Services
Verdict: Solid with gaps (9/16, partly commodity). The proof (Softonic, word.tips, maximum 4 clients) is original, but the method and deliverables could be signed by any consultancy, and the same proof is repeated three times.
Purpose: sell SEO/AEO/GEO consulting to large sites. YMYL: no.
| Pillar | Score | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | 2/4 | Clear human work: “Para quién es / No es para ti”, the 4-client limit and the pricing explanation. But there is nothing first-hand in the method: no example audit and no screenshot of AI measurement. | Add an anonymized excerpt from an audit or a real 90-day roadmap. |
| Originality | 2/4 | “Diagnóstico → Arreglos → Contenido → Medición” and the five deliverables are the standard outline of any consulting page. The only original line is “llevé el catálogo de Softonic de 100.000 a más de 1 millón de páginas útiles”. | Explain the method with a concrete case: what you found in the crawl of X and what changed. |
| Talent or skill | 3/4 | Well structured, useful FAQ, the price is explained without hiding it. It loses some points because the phrase “Softonic, 1.000 millones de usuarios / word.tips, 2 millones de visitas diarias” appears in the intro, in Resultados and in the FAQ. | State the proof once and use the space for something new. |
| Accuracy | 2/4 | The SEO claims are generally correct but vague (“en las webs grandes es donde más tráfico se pierde”). “llms.txt” appears as a deliverable of the GEO strategy without explaining that no major search engine has confirmed it uses it [Auditor judgment]. The “ex ingenieros de Google” hook again has no source. | Explain what llms.txt does and does not do, or remove it from the deliverables. Specify the hook. |
Commodity
- Swap test: if you remove the Softonic/word.tips paragraphs, the rest works for any other consultancy. Partly commodity.
- Top 10 test: partly checked (only titles and snippets for “consultoría SEO GEO consultor freelance”: service pages from Malt and from consultants with the same audit + GEO strategy outline).
- Assets only you have, used: Softonic and word.tips case studies, 4-client limit.
- Non-commodity angle: “Qué encuentro en la primera semana de una auditoría a una web de +1M de URLs”: the 3–5 problems that repeat most across your clients, with anonymized data.
Red flags: none from Lowest/Low. Repetition of the social proof, minor (5.2.2, filler).
3. Case studies
Verdict: Solid with gaps (9/16, non-commodity). The site’s most valuable asset is told in 450 words, with no dates, no chart and no explanation of the quality controls of a content program generated with in-house models.
Purpose: show results to build commercial trust. YMYL: no.
| Pillar | Score | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | 2/4 | Four figures and five “Cómo lo hicimos” blocks of one line each. No chart, screenshot, timeline or example of a generated page. | Add the sessions curve (even indexed to 100), a timeline and a before/after of one page. |
| Originality | 3/4 | It is a case only you can tell: 0 → 20M sessions/month, catalog from 100k → 1M+ pages, in-house models. | Nothing to add here; the problem is depth, not originality. |
| Talent or skill | 2/4 | Correct and readable, but it stays at headline level: “flujos de generación y revisión que mantenían el nivel editorial” does not explain how. It lacks what a reader would most want: what went wrong. | Explain what quality controls existed, what percentage was reviewed and what was discarded. |
| Accuracy | 2/4 | Figures without a date or period: “0 → 20M en 24 meses” does not say which 24 months (the Softonic stage is 2019–2024 according to /sobre-mi/). “Cuando arrancamos aún no había LLM comerciales” depends on the start year: the GPT-3 API was commercial from 2020 [Auditor judgment]. The “+40 % en 2024” is not connected to the program. | Add years. Qualify it as “before ChatGPT” instead of “there were no commercial LLMs”. Explain where the +40% comes from. |
Commodity
- Swap test: if you change the name, the case study loses everything. Non-commodity.
- Top 10 test: not checked (there is no generic target query).
- Assets only you have, used: Softonic’s own figures.
- Missing non-commodity angle: the story you already tell in the quality post (translations dragged the site down in a core update, move to ccTLD and recovery) is not in the case study.
Red flags: none on the page. Reading risk: the case study describes, without visible controls, the pattern the guidelines associate with scaled content (4.6.5): generating hundreds of thousands of pages with models. It is not a flag on this page, but on a site that positions itself on quality, it makes sense to show the quality control.
4. Tools
Verdict: Solid with gaps (11/16, partly commodity). The tool works and the guide is practical, but several free tools do something similar.
Purpose: check whether search and AI bots can access a URL and capture leads. YMYL: no.
| Pillar | Score | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | 3/4 | Working tool (tested live: /api/bot-check returns robots.txt, sitemaps and a verdict per bot for 15 bots, with CDN challenge detection). Guide with 4 causes + FAQ. | Nothing urgent. |
| Originality | 2/4 | Search turns up LLM Pulse, SEOCrawl, Surmado, IsVisible or Lightsite with the same purpose. What sets it apart is comparing the browser’s response with each bot’s and the specific Cloudflare dashboard paths. | Publish original data: run the tool on the 500 Spanish sites with the most traffic and report how many block each bot without knowing it. |
| Talent or skill | 3/4 | It explains the search / user / training split well and is honest about its limits (“confírmalo en los logs”). | Nothing urgent. |
| Accuracy | 3/4 | Correct and specific: Google-Extended versus Googlebot for AI Overviews, robots.txt 5xx versus 404. The 5xx point is simplified (Google applies time windows and uses the cached copy) [Auditor judgment]. | Add the nuance about 5xx time windows and a link to Google’s robots.txt documentation. |
Commodity
- Swap test: with another brand the page would lose little; the tool is the value and others partly replicate it. Partly commodity.
- Top 10 test: partly checked (titles and snippets for “comprobar si bots de IA GPTBot ClaudeBot pueden acceder”: at least 5 similar tools, several only read robots.txt).
- Assets only you have, used: own tool, Cloudflare experience.
- Non-commodity angle: the data study above, published as a post and linked from the tool.
Red flags: none found.
5. New blog (2026)
Verdict: Solid with gaps (12/16, non-commodity). It is the best page on the site: a first-hand account, labeled sources and an original case. It falls one point short of “Strong” because that original case is told without figures or dates.
Purpose: explain what quality means to Google based on the Search Central Live Deep Dive in Barcelona and lead readers to the audit skill. YMYL: no.
| Pillar | Score | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | 3/4 | Attendance at the event, own photos of the slides, 28 references, timing tables, a distinction between what is documented and what is inferred. | To reach 4: original data (e.g., the evolution of “Rastreada: actualmente sin indexar” for a client). |
| Originality | 3/4 | The only unique parts: the Softonic case (translations that lower site quality, move to ccTLD, recovery in the next core) and the retrieval slides with quality as a URL attribute. The rest (leak, patents, DOJ Q*) is already on iPullRank, SEJ and similar. | Give more space to the Softonic case and less to the leak summary. |
| Talent or skill | 3/4 | TL;DR, tables, literal quotes and an action list at the end. It is 4.300 words; the twiddlers section drifts away from the reader’s question. | Cut twiddlers to one paragraph or move it to a separate post. |
| Accuracy | 3/4 | Careful: “es una deducción mía”, “tómalos como lo que Google enseñó en la sala”, “nadie lo ha documentado”. Gaps: “una caída de un 20 y pico por ciento” with no date or core update; “Gary Illyes dejó claro que los core updates miran el site” with no written source. It links to the 2015 thin content post as “ya lo decía”, and that post recommends blocking with robots.txt (see section 6). | Date the Softonic case, cite Gary’s source (We Are ROAST recap or another) and change or update the link to the thin content post. |
Commodity
- Swap test: with another brand, the account and the Softonic case are lost. Non-commodity.
- Top 10 test: partly checked (the event ran 30 Sep to 2 Oct 2026; there are few written accounts and search only returns event announcements, not equivalent content).
- Assets only you have, used: attendance, photos, Softonic case, own skill.
- Non-commodity angle to strengthen: the Softonic case with figures and dates.
Red flags: none found. There is a lead magnet block, but it does not cover the MC.
6. SEO Hacks archive (2015–2017)
Verdict: At risk (5/16, commodity). A 2015 post that says the same as the current top 10, with advice that is incorrect today, missing images and calls to action that no longer work. And it is the most numerous page type on the blog.
Purpose: explain what Google considers thin content. YMYL: no.
Page audited: /blog/que-es-thin-content/ (published 16 Nov 2015, updated 8 Feb 2016; 1.167 words, at the archive’s median). It carries the notice “Artículo recuperado de SEO Hacks… parte de la información puede estar obsoleta”. It is indexable and in the sitemap.
| Pillar | Score | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effort | 2/4 | Written by a person, with one original tip (“crear una página en la que englobar todas las noticias”). The recovered version has unreviewed leftovers: “deja tu comentario aquí abajo” (there are no comments), “suscríbete al blog”, “Ya estoy preparando un nuevo post sobre…”. | If kept, actually review it: remove dead CTAs and update it. |
| Originality | 1/4 | The four types (auto-generated, affiliate feeds, duplicate, doorways) come from Google’s documentation and appear across the whole current top 10 (IEB School, Cyberclick, SE Ranking, Semrush…). | Only worth it if rewritten with original cases (Softonic, word.tips). |
| Talent or skill | 1/4 | Typos (“Feeds de afilición”, “feed da afiliación”, “españa”), a long intro (“Después de meter el rollo…”), lost images, a video linked instead of explained. | Rewrite or retire. |
| Accuracy | 1/4 | It recommends “capar el acceso a esa categoría al bot de Google a través del Robots.txt” for thin content: blocking does not remove URLs from the index and also stops Google from seeing a noindex [Auditor judgment, consistent with Google’s robots.txt documentation]. It dates the doorways update “en verano” when Google announced it in March 2015 [Auditor judgment]. It frames duplicates as “Pandazo” without distinguishing technical duplication from copying [Auditor judgment]. It recommends hiring cheap writing on foreign platforms. | Fix or retire. At a minimum, remove the robots.txt advice. |
Commodity
- Swap test: with another brand nothing is lost. Commodity.
- Top 10 test: partly checked (titles and snippets for “qué es thin content Google”: the same definitions and types everywhere).
- Assets only you have, used: none relevant today.
- Non-commodity angle: “Thin content en un catálogo de 1M de páginas: qué consolidamos y qué borramos en Softonic”, with data.
Red flags: 5.2.1 (low effort and originality, Low) for this page in its current state. It is not scaled content abuse (4.6.5): it is real human content, from a real author, with an archive notice.
What the rest of the archive says (by title and opening of each post, not audited one by one): posts with first-hand experience (ddos: “perder 120.000 visitas por un ataque DDoS”; link-building-alex-navarro; crawl-budget-optimizar-http-304; cloaking) coexist with commodity or obsolete pieces (200-factores-seo-que-posicionan-en-google, an infographic based on English-language roundups; guia-seo “Posiciona cualquier web en 2017”, unfinished at 10 installments; https-gratis; el-dia-a-dia-de-un-seo-en-gifs; seo-tips-gary-illyes, a compilation of tweets; creando-blog-seo-wordpress, which the author himself describes in another post as “demasiado básico… hay mil y un blogs que explican cómo hacerlo”).
Page type and site view
Size: the sitemap has 62 URLs. 19 are SEO Hacks archive posts (31%). On the Spanish blog, 19 of 21 posts are from 2015–2017 (the other later one is from 2023). There is no archive in English, so there are no weak translations: the EN versions are full equivalents with hreflang.
Topical focus: the whole site is SEO, GEO, AI and growth. No page type strays from the core topic, so siteFocusScore and siteRadius do not seem to be a problem [Inference]. The problem is not focus but average quality: on a 62-URL site, a third of unreviewed 2015 content weighs far more than on one with 50.000.
Drag: the site is small and personal, with strong case studies and tools. If Google judges quality at site level (as the core updates documentation indicates, “the site as a whole”), the archive is the only thing that can visibly lower the average. seohacks.es redirects with a 301 to the new URLs, so the archive inherits the old links; that explains why it was migrated, but does not justify indexing the weak posts.
Recommendation by page type:
| Page type | Pages (ES/EN) | Recommendation | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home | 1 / 1 | Improve | Source the main claims. |
| Services | 4 / 4 (+ index) | Improve | Remove repetition and add one element only you have per service. |
| Case studies | 4 / 4 (+ index) | Improve (priority) | It is the best asset on the site and is told in 450 words. |
| Tools | 2 / 2 (+ index) | Improve | They work; an original data angle is missing. |
| New blog | 2 / 2 | Improve (light) | Already the best on the site; date and quantify the case. |
| SEO Hacks archive | 19 / 0 | Remove or noindex most; consolidate the 3–4 with first-hand experience | Mostly commodity or obsolete and 31% of the sitemap. |
For the archive specifically: noindex and out of the sitemap (or 410) for the commodity or obsolete posts. Review and update those with first-hand experience (ddos, link building, crawl budget 304, cloaking) and merge the two 2016 posts on Quality Raters and E-A-T (guia-quality-raters-google, credibilidad-vs-autoridad-eat) into the new quality post, with a 301. Moving the archive to another domain does not pay off: seohacks.es was already consolidated here and it would undo that work.
Related Google signals
| Finding | Signal | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| A third of the sitemap is unreviewed 2015–2017 content | chardEncoded, tofu (site) | Description “site quality predictor based on content” [Documented]; that the archive lowers that prediction [Inference] |
| Archive posts well below the quality of the rest of the site | rhubarb | “Site-URL delta signals based quality score” [Documented]; applying it to this case [Inference] |
| Archive with little visible effort versus the new posts | contentEffort | “LLM-based effort estimation for article pages” [Documented]; that it measures the effort pillar [Inference] |
| Small personal single-author site | smallPersonalSite | “Score of small personal site promotion” [Documented]; that this site benefits [Hypothesis] |
| No popups or interstitials | clutterScore | Description [Documented]; no findings here |
| Whole site on the same topic | siteFocusScore, siteRadius | Descriptions [Documented]; low risk here [Inference] |
Priority actions
- Triage the SEO Hacks archive. Noindex and out of the sitemap (or 410) for the commodity or obsolete posts; update the 3–4 with first-hand experience; consolidate the Quality Raters and E-A-T posts into the new post. Change the quality post’s link to the thin content post, or update that post and remove the robots.txt advice.
- Rewrite the case studies, starting with Softonic. Years, timeline, sessions chart, quality controls of the AI program, what was reviewed and what was discarded, and the story of the core update and the ccTLD move that you already tell in the post. Correct “aún no había LLM comerciales”.
- Source the commercial claims and remove repetition in services. Specify or link the “ex ingenieros de Google Search” claim, link the “Me han citado” logos, correct “más de ocho años” of teaching, explain or remove llms.txt as a deliverable and add an anonymized audit excerpt to each service.
- Publish a study with data from the bot checker (e.g., the Spanish sites with the most traffic) to turn the tool into a citable source.