# ASO Scoring Criteria Score each dimension 0-10 using the rubrics below. **Apply brand maturity tier adjustments** from Phase 1.5 of the main skill. --- ## Brand Maturity Adjustments (apply to all dimensions) Before scoring, determine the app's tier: **Dominant**, **Established**, or **Challenger**. **Dominant apps (Instagram, Uber, Spotify, WhatsApp, Netflix):** - Brand-only titles score 8+ (the brand IS the keyword) - Lifestyle/brand screenshots score same as captioned UI screenshots - Generic What's New at weekly+ cadence scores 8+ - Missing in-app events for utility apps is not a penalty - Description scored on conversion quality only, not keyword presence - Localization scored relative to actual market footprint - Missing preview video is acceptable if brand awareness is near-universal **Established apps (Duolingo, Strava, Notion, Calm, Cash App):** - Brand-first titles with 1-2 keywords score normally - Strategic description/visual choices get benefit of the doubt - All other dimensions scored normally **Challenger apps (most apps):** - Scored strictly against textbook ASO — every character and feature matters **Key principle:** Before docking points, ask: "Is this a mistake or a data-informed choice by a team with more information than I have?" --- ## 1. Title & Subtitle (Weight: 20%) **Challenger rubric:** | Score | Criteria | | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 9-10 | Brand + high-value keyword in title, complementary keywords in subtitle, no word repetition across fields, near max character usage, instantly communicates app purpose | | 7-8 | Good keyword presence, minor character waste (5+ unused chars), clear purpose | | 5-6 | Has keywords but poor placement, some repetition between fields, purpose somewhat clear | | 3-4 | Title is brand-only or generic, subtitle missing or weak, poor character usage | | 1-2 | No keyword strategy, title doesn't communicate purpose, major character waste | | 0 | Cannot assess (data unavailable) | **Dominant/Established adjustment:** Brand-only titles (e.g., "Instagram") are valid if the brand has high search volume. Score 8+ for Dominant apps where brand recognition eliminates the need for generic keywords. Evaluate whether unused characters represent waste or intentional simplicity. **Check for:** - Characters used vs limit (title: 30, subtitle/short desc: 30/80). "Near max" = within 3 chars of the limit (27+/30, 77+/80) - Primary keyword in title - Keyword duplication between title and subtitle - Whether app purpose is immediately clear - Unnecessary words (articles, prepositions) consuming space - Special characters or claims ("#1", "best") that risk rejection (Apple) --- ## 2. Description (Weight: 15%) ### Apple App Store | Score | Criteria | | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 9-10 | First 3 lines hook with clear value prop, structured with features/benefits/social proof/CTA, promotional text actively used, compelling and scannable | | 7-8 | Good opening, decent structure, could improve scannability or CTA | | 5-6 | Generic opening ("Welcome to..."), some structure, missing CTA or social proof | | 3-4 | Wall of text, no clear value prop above fold, no promotional text | | 1-2 | Minimal or boilerplate description, no effort | | 0 | Cannot assess | ### Google Play | Score | Criteria | | ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 9-10 | Keywords in first 3 sentences, 2-3% natural density throughout, HTML formatting used, structured sections, strong CTA, keywords feel natural | | 7-8 | Good keyword presence, some structure, density slightly off (1-2% or 3-4%) | | 5-6 | Keywords present but sparse (<1%) or stuffed (>5%), weak structure | | 3-4 | No keyword strategy visible, poor formatting, wall of text | | 1-2 | Minimal description, no keywords, no structure | | 0 | Cannot assess | **Check for:** - First 3 lines quality (visible before "Read More") - Feature-benefit framing (not just feature lists) - Social proof (downloads, awards, press mentions) - Call to action - Keyword density (Google Play only - count target keywords / total words) - HTML formatting usage (Google Play) - Promotional text presence and quality (Apple) --- ## 3. Visual Assets (Weight: 25%) | Score | Criteria | | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 9-10 | 8-10 screenshots with clear messaging/captions, preview video present, screenshots tell a story in sequence, each communicates one benefit, icon is distinctive and memorable | | 7-8 | 6-7 screenshots with captions, good icon, no video OR good video but some screenshot messaging unclear | | 5-6 | 5+ screenshots but weak/no captions, basic icon, no video, screenshots are UI dumps | | 3-4 | 3-4 screenshots, no captions, generic icon, no storytelling | | 1-2 | Fewer than 3 screenshots, or screenshots are raw unedited UI, poor icon | | 0 | Cannot assess | **Check for:** - Screenshot count (minimum 5, ideal 8-10) - Caption/overlay text on screenshots (one message per screen, 5-7 words max) - First 3 screenshots (highest conversion impact on Apple) - Preview video presence and quality - Icon distinctiveness (no text in icon, bold shapes, stands out) - Feature graphic presence (Google Play - mandatory for featured placements) - Screenshot storytelling flow (do they tell a coherent story?) - Localized visual assets (for non-English markets) - Caption keywords (Apple - indexed since June 2025) --- ## 4. Ratings & Reviews (Weight: 20%) | Score | Criteria | | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 9-10 | 4.5+ stars, 10K+ ratings, recent reviews positive, developer responds to negatives, steady review flow | | 7-8 | 4.0-4.4 stars, 1K+ ratings, mostly positive recent reviews, some developer responses | | 5-6 | 3.5-3.9 stars, 500+ ratings, mixed recent reviews, no developer responses | | 3-4 | 3.0-3.4 stars, <500 ratings, negative themes in recent reviews | | 1-2 | Below 3.0 stars, few ratings, no developer engagement, visible complaints | | 0 | No ratings yet or cannot assess | **Check for:** - Average rating (target: 4.0+ minimum, 4.5+ ideal) - Total rating count - Recent review sentiment (last 5-10 visible reviews) - Common complaint themes (bugs, crashes, pricing, UX) - Developer response presence and quality - Rating trend (improving or declining, if visible) - Review recency (fresh reviews signal active user base) --- ## 5. Metadata & Freshness (Weight: 10%) | Score | Criteria | | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 9-10 | Updated within last month, 10+ localizations, optimal category choice, in-app events/LiveOps active, data safety complete | | 7-8 | Updated within 2 months, 5+ localizations, good category, data safety present | | 5-6 | Updated within 3 months, 2-4 localizations, acceptable category | | 3-4 | Updated 3-6 months ago, 1-2 localizations, possibly wrong category | | 1-2 | Not updated in 6+ months, single language, poor category choice | | 0 | Cannot assess | **Check for:** - Last update date and recency - Number of supported languages/localizations - Category selection (is it the best fit? less competitive alternative?) - In-app events (Apple) or promotional content (Google) presence - Data safety / privacy nutrition label completeness - Age rating appropriateness - Version history quality (do release notes communicate value?) - What's New text quality --- ## 6. Conversion Signals (Weight: 10%) | Score | Criteria | | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 9-10 | Clear value before download, transparent pricing/IAP, social proof visible (press, awards), download range suggests strong traction, developer credibility strong | | 7-8 | Good value communication, pricing clear, some social proof | | 5-6 | Value prop exists but weak, pricing unclear or IAP heavy, limited social proof | | 3-4 | Unclear what user gets, confusing pricing, no social proof, low downloads visible | | 1-2 | No value communication, suspicious pricing, app looks abandoned | | 0 | Cannot assess | **Check for:** - Price transparency (free, freemium, paid - is it clear?) - In-app purchase list quality (do IAP names communicate value?) - Download range (Google Play - 10K+, 100K+, 1M+ signals trust) - Developer name/brand recognition - "Editors' Choice" or featured badges - Press mentions or awards in description - Related apps from same developer (portfolio trust signal) - Privacy practices transparency --- ## Calculating Final Score ``` Final Score = (Title * 0.20) + (Description * 0.15) + (Visuals * 0.25) + (Ratings * 0.20) + (Metadata * 0.10) + (Conversion * 0.10) Scale to 100: Final Score * 10 ``` **Example:** Title: 7, Description: 6, Visuals: 8, Ratings: 9, Metadata: 5, Conversion: 7 ``` (7 * 0.20) + (6 * 0.15) + (8 * 0.25) + (9 * 0.20) + (5 * 0.10) + (7 * 0.10) = 1.4 + 0.9 + 2.0 + 1.8 + 0.5 + 0.7 = 7.3 → 73/100 → Grade: B ```