Skills › Marketing Skills › aso › scoring-criteria.md
scoring-criteria.md
213 lines · skills/aso/references/scoring-criteria.md at 88c79f6
1# ASO Scoring Criteria
3Score each dimension 0-10 using the rubrics below.
4**Apply brand maturity tier adjustments** from Phase 1.5 of the main skill.
6---
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.
Raw lines 1 to 7
8## Brand Maturity Adjustments (apply to all dimensions)
10Before scoring, determine the app's tier: **Dominant**, **Established**, or **Challenger**.
12**Dominant apps (Instagram, Uber, Spotify, WhatsApp, Netflix):**
14- Brand-only titles score 8+ (the brand IS the keyword)
15- Lifestyle/brand screenshots score same as captioned UI screenshots
16- Generic What's New at weekly+ cadence scores 8+
17- Missing in-app events for utility apps is not a penalty
18- Description scored on conversion quality only, not keyword presence
19- Localization scored relative to actual market footprint
20- Missing preview video is acceptable if brand awareness is near-universal
22**Established apps (Duolingo, Strava, Notion, Calm, Cash App):**
24- Brand-first titles with 1-2 keywords score normally
25- Strategic description/visual choices get benefit of the doubt
26- All other dimensions scored normally
28**Challenger apps (most apps):**
30- Scored strictly against textbook ASO — every character and feature matters
32**Key principle:** Before docking points, ask: "Is this a mistake or a data-informed
33choice by a team with more information than I have?"
35---
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?"
Raw lines 8 to 36
37## 1. Title & Subtitle (Weight: 20%)
39**Challenger rubric:**
41| Score | Criteria |
42| ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
43| 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 |
44| 7-8 | Good keyword presence, minor character waste (5+ unused chars), clear purpose |
45| 5-6 | Has keywords but poor placement, some repetition between fields, purpose somewhat clear |
46| 3-4 | Title is brand-only or generic, subtitle missing or weak, poor character usage |
47| 1-2 | No keyword strategy, title doesn't communicate purpose, major character waste |
48| 0 | Cannot assess (data unavailable) |
50**Dominant/Established adjustment:** Brand-only titles (e.g., "Instagram") are
51valid if the brand has high search volume. Score 8+ for Dominant apps where
52brand recognition eliminates the need for generic keywords. Evaluate whether
53unused characters represent waste or intentional simplicity.
55**Check for:**
57- Characters used vs limit (title: 30, subtitle/short desc: 30/80). "Near max" = within 3 chars of the limit (27+/30, 77+/80)
58- Primary keyword in title
59- Keyword duplication between title and subtitle
60- Whether app purpose is immediately clear
61- Unnecessary words (articles, prepositions) consuming space
62- Special characters or claims ("#1", "best") that risk rejection (Apple)
64---
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)
Raw lines 37 to 65
2. Description (Weight: 15%)
Raw lines 66 to 6768### Apple App Store
70| Score | Criteria |
71| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
72| 9-10 | First 3 lines hook with clear value prop, structured with features/benefits/social proof/CTA, promotional text actively used, compelling and scannable |
73| 7-8 | Good opening, decent structure, could improve scannability or CTA |
74| 5-6 | Generic opening ("Welcome to..."), some structure, missing CTA or social proof |
75| 3-4 | Wall of text, no clear value prop above fold, no promotional text |
76| 1-2 | Minimal or boilerplate description, no effort |
77| 0 | Cannot assess |
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 |
79### Google Play
81| Score | Criteria |
82| ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
83| 9-10 | Keywords in first 3 sentences, 2-3% natural density throughout, HTML formatting used, structured sections, strong CTA, keywords feel natural |
84| 7-8 | Good keyword presence, some structure, density slightly off (1-2% or 3-4%) |
85| 5-6 | Keywords present but sparse (<1%) or stuffed (>5%), weak structure |
86| 3-4 | No keyword strategy visible, poor formatting, wall of text |
87| 1-2 | Minimal description, no keywords, no structure |
88| 0 | Cannot assess |
90**Check for:**
92- First 3 lines quality (visible before "Read More")
93- Feature-benefit framing (not just feature lists)
94- Social proof (downloads, awards, press mentions)
95- Call to action
96- Keyword density (Google Play only - count target keywords / total words)
97- HTML formatting usage (Google Play)
98- Promotional text presence and quality (Apple)
100---
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)
Raw lines 79 to 101
102## 3. Visual Assets (Weight: 25%)
104| Score | Criteria |
105| ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
106| 9-10 | First three screenshots carry the core value story with captions, 5+ total each communicating one benefit, preview video present, icon is distinctive and memorable |
107| 7-8 | 5+ captioned screenshots but the first three don't lead with the core value, good icon, no video OR good video but some screenshot messaging unclear |
108| 5-6 | 5+ screenshots but weak/no captions, basic icon, no video, screenshots are UI dumps |
109| 3-4 | 3-4 screenshots, no captions, generic icon, no storytelling |
110| 1-2 | Fewer than 3 screenshots, or screenshots are raw unedited UI, poor icon |
111| 0 | Cannot assess |
113**Check for:**
115- Screenshot count (at least 5; past 6 returns diminish, and 90% of users stop by the third, so judge the first three most heavily)
116- Caption/overlay text on screenshots (one message per screen, 5-7 words max)
117- First 3 screenshots (highest conversion impact on Apple)
118- Preview video presence and quality
119- Icon distinctiveness (no text in icon, bold shapes, stands out)
120- Feature graphic presence (Google Play - mandatory for featured placements)
121- Screenshot storytelling flow (do they tell a coherent story?)
122- Localized visual assets (for non-English markets)
123- Caption keywords (Apple - indexed since June 2025)
125---
3. Visual Assets (Weight: 25%)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | First three screenshots carry the core value story with captions, 5+ total each communicating one benefit, preview video present, icon is distinctive and memorable |
| 7-8 | 5+ captioned screenshots but the first three don't lead with the core value, 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 (at least 5; past 6 returns diminish, and 90% of users stop by the third, so judge the first three most heavily)
- 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)
Raw lines 102 to 126
127## 4. Ratings & Reviews (Weight: 20%)
129| Score | Criteria |
130| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
131| 9-10 | 4.5+ stars, 10K+ ratings, recent reviews positive, developer responds to negatives, steady review flow |
132| 7-8 | 4.0-4.4 stars, 1K+ ratings, mostly positive recent reviews, some developer responses |
133| 5-6 | 3.5-3.9 stars, 500+ ratings, mixed recent reviews, no developer responses |
134| 3-4 | 3.0-3.4 stars, <500 ratings, negative themes in recent reviews |
135| 1-2 | Below 3.0 stars, few ratings, no developer engagement, visible complaints |
136| 0 | No ratings yet or cannot assess |
138**Check for:**
140- Average rating (target: 4.0+ minimum, 4.5+ ideal)
141- Total rating count
142- Recent review sentiment (last 5-10 visible reviews)
143- Common complaint themes (bugs, crashes, pricing, UX)
144- Developer response presence and quality
145- Rating trend (improving or declining, if visible)
146- Review recency (fresh reviews signal active user base)
148---
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)
Raw lines 127 to 149
150## 5. Metadata & Freshness (Weight: 10%)
152| Score | Criteria |
153| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
154| 9-10 | Updated within last month, 10+ localizations, optimal category choice, in-app events/LiveOps active, data safety complete |
155| 7-8 | Updated within 2 months, 5+ localizations, good category, data safety present |
156| 5-6 | Updated within 3 months, 2-4 localizations, acceptable category |
157| 3-4 | Updated 3-6 months ago, 1-2 localizations, possibly wrong category |
158| 1-2 | Not updated in 6+ months, single language, poor category choice |
159| 0 | Cannot assess |
161**Check for:**
163- Last update date and recency
164- Number of supported languages/localizations
165- Category selection (is it the best fit? less competitive alternative?)
166- In-app events (Apple) or promotional content (Google) presence
167- Data safety / privacy nutrition label completeness
168- Age rating appropriateness
169- Version history quality (do release notes communicate value?)
170- What's New text quality
172---
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
Raw lines 150 to 173
174## 6. Conversion Signals (Weight: 10%)
176| Score | Criteria |
177| ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
178| 9-10 | Clear value before download, transparent pricing/IAP, social proof visible (press, awards), download range suggests strong traction, developer credibility strong |
179| 7-8 | Good value communication, pricing clear, some social proof |
180| 5-6 | Value prop exists but weak, pricing unclear or IAP heavy, limited social proof |
181| 3-4 | Unclear what user gets, confusing pricing, no social proof, low downloads visible |
182| 1-2 | No value communication, suspicious pricing, app looks abandoned |
183| 0 | Cannot assess |
185**Check for:**
187- Price transparency (free, freemium, paid - is it clear?)
188- In-app purchase list quality (do IAP names communicate value?)
189- Download range (Google Play - 10K+, 100K+, 1M+ signals trust)
190- Developer name/brand recognition
191- "Editors' Choice" or featured badges
192- Press mentions or awards in description
193- Related apps from same developer (portfolio trust signal)
194- Privacy practices transparency
196---
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
Raw lines 174 to 197
198## Calculating Final Score
200```
201Final Score = (Title * 0.20) + (Description * 0.15) + (Visuals * 0.25)
202 + (Ratings * 0.20) + (Metadata * 0.10) + (Conversion * 0.10)
204Scale to 100: Final Score * 10
205```
207**Example:** Title: 7, Description: 6, Visuals: 8, Ratings: 9, Metadata: 5, Conversion: 7
209```
210(7 * 0.20) + (6 * 0.15) + (8 * 0.25) + (9 * 0.20) + (5 * 0.10) + (7 * 0.10)
211= 1.4 + 0.9 + 2.0 + 1.8 + 0.5 + 0.7
212= 7.3 → 73/100 → Grade: B
213```
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 * 10Example: 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