SuppScore · Phase 1 Foundational Sprint · Prepared by Whirlwind
The pages already designed are good. What is missing is the structure that ties them together and lets the site grow without anyone designing a new page. This document sets that structure, and ends with four decisions only you can make.
Start here
The homepage, the ingredient dictionary, the product listing, How We Score: the right instincts are all there. The audit found five things missing between them, and every one of them is a structural decision rather than a bug.
Every page, from the homepage to the magnesium entry, carries the same title and the same description. To Google, the site currently looks like one page.
Every product sits at /results?scanId= followed by a random string. Nothing in that address tells anyone, or any search engine, which product it is.
Sleep, Energy and Immunity are filters on the product list. The main way we want people to navigate the site has no web addresses of its own.
People search "is Dr Vegan any good" every month. Today that search has nowhere to go on SuppScore.
No structured data on any page, no robots file, no sitemap. Nothing yet tells Google or an AI assistant what a score is, what it is made of, or which pages exist.
None of these are bugs. They are what happens when pages get built before the structure that connects them is agreed. Every one is close to free to fix now and expensive to fix after launch, when fixing means moving addresses, setting up redirects, and re-earning credit that was already built up against the wrong pages.
The stakes are specific to this market. SuppScore launches with no authority into a category owned by Examine and the NIH, and 80 to 90 percent of the biggest supplement searches in the UK now show an AI answer at the top. We cannot outspend the incumbents on authority. Structure is the one thing we fully control, and it gets set in the next few weeks or not at all.
The structure
Trust makes the knowledge believable. Knowledge makes the demand pages worth reading. Demand pages send people to products. Products feed data back up.
The page types
Every page on the site is one of eleven templates. One more is designed and held back for later. Six are built automatically from records in the database. The rest are either built only where we can see people searching, or built by hand.
The main page for each ingredient, and the page everything else about that ingredient points to.
Why it earns its place. Ingredient pages are 72 percent of Examine's top 1,000 UK searches. The NIH holds 467 top-three positions with the same page type. The single most valuable page type in the category.
For the specific forms people search by name.
Why it earns its place. Examine's own magnesium glycinate page returns an error. These searches are answered today by shops and blogs. Our 683 scored forms are the only dataset that can answer them properly.
The other half of the score, explained. The fillers, binders and coatings we mark products down for.
Why it earns its place. We already hold around 137 scored excipients. No site we studied grades additives at all.
The main way people navigate the site, and the top of each section.
Why it earns its place. Examine runs 26 health categories. Our planned 20 to 30 is the right size, and it is the navigation path already confirmed.
The commercial page. States a winner, a score and a reason, and says so in its own page description.
Why it earns its place. Ranked list pages account for 97 percent of Labdoor's search visibility. This is the page type the pre-launch ad plan already depends on.
For questions that need a real answer, not a paragraph. Governed by the rule on the next screen.
Why it earns its place. Question-shaped content is quoted by AI assistants far more often than its share of rankings. Examine's question pages are 7.5 percent of their rankings but 17.5 percent of their AI citations.
A label decoded, with a score.
Why it earns its place. This page type earns IncideCoder 2.27M monthly searches and accounts for 474 of Unbox Health's 515 ranked searches.
An honest summary of everything we have scored from one brand. Not a navigation path.
Why it earns its place. Real demand with nowhere to land today, and exactly the kind of search an independent scorer can win. Three rules: the page links out to the brand's official website and marks it as the official source, so nobody thinks we are pretending to be them; the page reports the data and passes no judgement on the company; and it is only created once we have scored three or more of their products, so it has something to say.
Direct comparisons carrying our own verdict: the score difference, the dose difference, and a plain answer.
Why it earns its place. Worth having, easy to ruin. 83 percent of Unbox Health's sitemap is comparison pages earning 3 percent of their traffic. These get built from the keyword research only, never by pairing every form with every other form.
The campaign page. Pre-launch Top-20 articles, ad landing pages, PR pieces.
Why it earns its place. This is what the pre-launch plan of 500 products plus Top-20 articles plus paid traffic already needs.
Methodology, about, advisory board, policies.
Why it earns its place. Labdoor describes its method but never publishes its weights or its formula. Publishing ours in full, in a form machines can read, is the clearest difference between SuppScore and everyone else.
Pages like "magnesium for sleep". Real demand exists, but at launch, with 145 ingredients and 500 products, we could not write anything on those pages that is not already on the magnesium page and the sleep page.
/benefits/sleep/magnesiumWhat happens instead. Those questions get answered as FAQ sections on the ingredient page, linked across to the relevant benefit page. The web address slot stays reserved, so when the database is deep enough to justify these, it is a new page type dropping into a space that already exists, not a rebuild.
Plus one tool that is deliberately not a template: the analyser itself. Results from a pasted ingredient list stay on /results and stay out of Google.
The rule that protects the site
This is the page type that most often wrecks sites like this, so the rule is worth stating on its own. Left alone, a database of 145 ingredients and 25 benefits can generate thousands of question pages. Most would be one paragraph long, and Google treats a site full of one-paragraph pages as a low quality site. That judgement then affects the good pages too.
At launch that means roughly 20 to 40 question pages, chosen from the keyword research in Deliverable 2, not generated from a list. It also means the FAQ sections on ingredient and benefit pages matter more than they look. They are the same question-and-answer format that gets quoted by AI assistants, sitting on pages that are already strong.
The decision the knowledge library rests on
One magnesium page. Glycinate, citrate, oxide and the rest each get a row in a table and a line in an FAQ. This is what Examine and the NIH do.
Safe, and it can never produce a thin page. It also leaves every search for a specific form, "magnesium glycinate benefits", "glycinate dosage for sleep", to be answered by shops and blogs. We would own the best form-level data in the category and never show it.
The magnesium page stays the main page. It carries a summary row for every form: tier, multiplier, one-line reason, reference.
A form gets its own page only when two things are both true. People are searching for that form by name, and our data holds something distinct to say about it. Promoting a form is a setting on a record, not a piece of development work.
We expect 80 to 150 forms to get their own page at launch. The exact list comes out of the keyword research in Deliverable 2, not out of anyone's opinion.
Why this survives scale
When your team adds ingredient 146, or the database reaches product 5,000, nobody designs anything.
Three publishing rules decide what Google sees. A complete record with real search demand gets published. A record missing required information still renders for users but stays out of Google until it is complete. A web address that does not match a real record returns a proper error page, never an empty page pretending to be real.
The same applies to categories. Benefit categories are records, not designs. Adding sports nutrition or kids' supplements later is a new record inheriting the benefit template, not a redesign. Deliverable 2 maps search demand against whatever categories exist at the time.
The end state
Three moments, all direct results of the structure above. Worth two sentences of context first: the established sites are shutting AI systems out, with drugs.com alone blocking around 20 AI crawlers and ConsumerLab sitting behind a paywall. Only one site in our whole study explicitly lets AI in.
Our robots file welcomes the assistant's crawler by name, our firewall never blocks it, and the page's raw code carries the tier, the multiplier, the dose zones and the references as plain readable text.
Winnable immediately, because being quoted by an assistant depends on being readable, not on being famous.
The Top-20 page states the winner, its score and the reason in its own page description. When Google's AI answer quotes a source, the sentence it lifts is ours, with the grade attached.
Slower, because it needs rankings first. Same page, both jobs.
A SuppScore badge sits on the product page, linking back to that product on our site. Every badge is a link, a mention and a reminder at the exact moment someone is deciding what to buy.
A later decision, but the page it links to is being built now, and the address will not change under it.
The point of this document
Everything above is settled. These four are not, because they are judgement calls about the business rather than decisions about structure. Two pairs of them are connected, and it is worth seeing how.