Enter your domain. Credify reads the meta title and description on every page it finds, flags the ones repeated or filled in from a template, and compares the page text itself, then tells you which ones are near-copies, which are too short to stand on their own, and which carry text that appears nowhere else on your site. Every number names the pages behind it, so you can open them and check.
Reads your pages and compares them with each other, which is the one thing a single-page check cannot do: how much they repeat each other, how many are too short, and which titles and descriptions are reused or filled in from a template. Free scans read 25 pages, spread across the sitemap, in about 20–40 seconds. Pro’s deep scan reads up to 250.
A town page with 280 words and a tidy title passes every check on its own. Three hundred of them with only the town swapped is a different thing, and nothing about any single page shows it. The problem is not inside a page. It is between them, and it only appears when the pages are read side by side.
So that is what this does. It reads your pages together and tells you how much of each one appears on the others. What you get back is not a verdict: it is a list of your own URLs with a number against each, and you can open any two of them and see the shared sentences for yourself.
Eight things, each about the site as a whole rather than one page.
On average, how much of one page’s wording turns up on another. Pages written separately sit near 2%.
Two or more of your addresses answered with exactly the same text, word for word. That is not two similar pages: it is one page served twice, usually a routing fault or a URL that should be missing returning a real page instead of a 404.
How many of your pages have a twin somewhere on the site, and every pair that is mostly the same, with both addresses.
How many are under 300 words. Chinese, Japanese and Thai are counted by characters, so they are not called short by mistake.
Titles or descriptions used on several pages at once, with the text itself and the pages sharing it.
Two titles or descriptions that are the same except for one word: what a template with a blank in it leaves behind.
A description that says the title again and finishes with a stock line like “Try it free now.” Written descriptions do not look like that.
Every page ranked by how much of its writing appears nowhere else on your site. The top carry something of their own. The bottom cost the least to merge away.
Also mentioned, adding nothing to the score: pairs left out of the score because the pages repeat by design — product variants, a cart or a confirmation page, your terms and conditions — each named with the reason, which language folder was compared if your site has several, pages whose text only appears once JavaScript has run, overview and hub pages that summarise the rest of the site on purpose, and any address in your sitemap that could not be opened.
Once the site scan has pointed at a page, the Page Scan tab checks that one URL against 33 things.
Two people writing about the same subject, separately, share very little wording. So when two of your pages share most of theirs, they were not written twice: they were filled in twice from the same template. That is what the scan looks for, and why the result is something you can check by opening two tabs.
A free scan reads 25 of your pages, taken from across the whole sitemap rather than off the top, and compares each one with all the others. You get back: how much your pages repeat each other on average, every pair that is mostly the same with both addresses, how many pages are under 300 words, which meta titles and descriptions are used more than once, and a list of every page ranked by how much of its writing appears nowhere else. When one page needs a closer look, the E-E-A-T Checker goes through it on its own, and the history of the Panda update explains where judging a whole site at once came from, and what the scan found on 30 real websites shows the results side by side, including what it got wrong.
A stranger telling you something about your own site deserves suspicion, so nothing here asks to be believed. Every finding names the pages it came from. Open the two addresses, read them side by side, and the shared sentences are either there or they are not. The two site owners who have acted on one of these scans both re-derived the numbers from their own pages first, and one of them got a slightly different answer for the same reason two people counting a crowd do. It changed nothing about which pages were copies.
The shape is easy to recognise once you have seen it. The description under a search result opens by saying the page title again, word for word, then finishes with a line like Try it free now. Get started today. One page like that is a wasted line of text. Two hundred pages like that is a pattern. The check is a plain string comparison: it does not guess at anyone's intent, and no model is involved.
Why it matters more than it looks: comparing the body text of a whole site is expensive. Comparing titles and descriptions is not — two short strings per address, checkable in one pass. So a description shape repeated across every page is the cheapest evidence there is that the pages were produced in bulk, and it says nothing about whether the writing underneath is original. That is the trap. You can write every word of every article yourself and still be judged on a metadata job that took a script four seconds.
It is almost never deliberate. It comes from filling in every description in one go, from a spreadsheet that glues two columns together, and from a site template that fills the same pattern for every page in the database: {{page_title}} | {{site_name}}. {{tagline}} Try it free now.. Each one produces a perfectly valid description that no person ever read. This tells you which of yours were written and which were assembled.
Best Running Shoes for Flat Feet | ShoeGuideBest Running Shoes for Flat Feet | ShoeGuide. Find your perfect pair instantly. Shop now.Best Running Shoes for Flat Feet | ShoeGuideNine stability shoes tested over 300 miles by a runner with fallen arches: which held their shape, which collapsed, and which to skip.In June 2026 this site lost most of its search traffic. The obvious suspect was the writing: the articles must be too alike. So we measured it. Across the whole site, pages shared 2% of their wording with each other, which is what separately written pages look like. The articles were fine.
The descriptions were not. Twenty-six pages carried one that opened with its own title and ended with the same stock line, because they had all come out of a single pass instead of being written one at a time. We rewrote all twenty-six by hand, then built the check so it would catch the shape on other sites. It is the check we wish we had been running.
We are not claiming that fixed it. The rewrite is recent, search moves slowly, and the honest answer is that we do not know. What we can say is what it cost to find out. If your descriptions were filled in as a batch, this is the fastest thing on the list: a writing job, not an engineering one, and it does not touch a line of your actual content.
It cannot tell you why your traffic changed. It has no view of Google, it never asks for access to your Search Console or your analytics, and anything that sounded like a verdict from Google would be invented. Plenty of tools will give you one anyway. This is a measurement of your own pages against each other, and that is all it is.
It also cannot tell you a page is good. A page can be the only one of its kind on your site and still say what a hundred other sites already say — the comparison stops at your own domain. And unless your site is small, it reads a sample rather than every page, so it describes the shape of your site rather than auditing all of it. Where a number is too small a sample to mean anything, the scan says so instead of printing a percentage.
Free for 25 pages, no signup. See which of your pages share their wording, which are thin, and which are worth keeping.
Want the history behind all this? See the Google algorithm updates timeline, every core and spam update from 2011 to 2026, or the Helpful Content Update survival guide if a sitewide decline is what brought you here.