See historic audits
Approved audits, including the current report. Hover or focus a point for values; select it to open the report.
Online Reputation
Executive Summary
Checks Passed
62 checks were evaluated within the available access and audit scope. 31 are PASS; 20 are WARN and 11 are FAIL. These counts show the results of evaluated checks, not a weighted quality score.
Executive Scoreboard
Executive Strength / Risk
This audit provides a consolidated executive view of how a brand’s digital presence supports—or weakens—its online reputation and the value of its digital investments. It evaluates key public indicators across semantic visibility, technical performance, legal and trust signals, platform consistency, reputation strength, and sector-specific competitive context. Rather than treating these signals in isolation, the audit examines their relationships and relevant correlations with commercial performance. Its final goal is to give senior executives a clear, evidence-based basis for identifying gaps, challenging internal assumptions, prioritizing corrective action, and making better-informed digital investment decisions.
Audit Report Definitions
Check Score
Audited online-presence quality indicator: PASS / (PASS + WARN + FAIL) × 100. Unverified and unavailable checks are excluded. This is not an overall brand or revenue score.
Verified Checks
Shows the checks ALO.NET Audit could evaluate using concrete evidence in this report. For example, 20/37 Verified Checks means that 20 of the 37 evaluated checks received PASS; the remainder may be WARN or FAIL. Unavailable, Unverified and excluded checks are outside this total.
Trust Basics
Summarizes basic website trust signals, including organizational identity, contact information, essential policies and trust infrastructure that help visitors and digital systems assess a website. It indicates basic trust hygiene and is neither a legal compliance certificate nor an overall reputation score.
Evidence Captured
Shows how many applicable checks have enough evidence for evaluation. For example, 48/83 means that usable evidence was obtained for 48 of 83 applicable checks. A higher value indicates broader audit coverage; it does not mean that the website performed well.
First Seen On Internet
Shows an estimated date from which the domain can be observed online. This is not the company incorporation date, the age of the brand or the opening date of a physical business. It provides context about the domain’s observable online history.
Matched Listings Avg. Rating
Shows the average user rating of Google Maps business listings reliably matched to the audited brand or website. Only verified entity matches are included; unrelated businesses with the same or a similar name are excluded. A qualified entity match does not necessarily mean that the listing’s Website field matches the audited domain.
Reviews Across Matched Listings
Shows the total number of user reviews across business listings matched to the brand. It indicates the volume of user feedback and provides context about online visibility. Review volume alone does not establish whether feedback is positive or negative.
Mobile PageSpeed
Shows website performance on mobile devices as a 0–100 score measured using Google Lighthouse/PageSpeed methodology. A higher score generally indicates better loading performance and user experience. This technical performance measure is produced by Google and is independent of the ALO.NET Check Score.
Executive Scoreboard
Provides an at-a-glance executive overview of key audit areas. Each row represents a different area and shows its PASS, WARN and FAIL results or the relevant system’s native score. Rows may use different measurement types, so their values should not always be compared directly as equivalent scores.
Legal Check
Examines whether essential legal and privacy information is accessible to users and search systems, together with related requirements that can be evaluated within the audit scope. ALO.NET Audit does not provide legal advice, and this result is not a legal compliance certificate.
AI Search Readiness
Separates captured query/page matching, search-assisted answers, own-domain sources, brand mentions, explicit recommendations and citation-free mentions. Results apply to the recorded query, market and response; unavailable observations remain neutral. Technical presence does not guarantee AI visibility or ranking.
Frontend Interaction Check
Examines visible interface and link signals that help visitors reach core actions such as contacting the business, searching, getting directions or making a reservation. Detecting a button or link does not establish that the corresponding action was successfully completed from end to end.
Semantic Quality
Evaluates structural and semantic signals that help people and machines understand page content. Headings, content relationships and related semantic cues help clarify what a page communicates.
PageSpeed | SEO Technical Quality
Summarizes measurable indicators of website performance and technical search readiness. Native PageSpeed/Lighthouse scores are provider measurements, rather than scores recreated by ALO.NET. They indicate technical quality but do not independently predict Google rankings.
Maps & Review Metrics
Evaluates verifiable Google Maps business listings, user ratings, review volume and, when available, comparable market evidence. Its purpose is to show the measurable portion of the brand’s local digital reputation within the audited scope.
Structured Data
Checks for structured data defined in website source code using standards such as Schema.org. This data can help search engines understand organizations, businesses, products, services and other content more accurately.
Social Presence
Evaluates the online presence of social media profiles verified as belonging to the brand. The result reflects verifiable brand presence, rather than follower counts or social media success.
Search Presence
Evaluates verifiable signals about whether the brand and website can be found by search systems. It shows available search visibility evidence and does not guarantee a ranking for any particular keyword.
Social Links
Checks links from the website’s own pages to the brand’s social media profiles. These links help establish an explicit first-party relationship between the website and the social accounts.
PASS / WARN / FAIL
PASS means sufficient positive evidence was found for the evaluated condition. WARN means the result is partly positive but needs attention. FAIL means an evaluated check did not meet the expected condition. These statuses apply only to checks that could actually be evaluated.
Medicana Sağlık Grubu is a healthcare provider offering medical care, treatment and patient services. Its website highlights Yanınızdayız Desteğiz… and MEDICANA Winchester Clinic Hizmetinizde!. Its public location footprint includes 12 captured Google Maps listings in the selected audit market. The website links to Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn profiles. The captured AI answer mentions the brand in response to the audited query.
Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi is the representative hospital selected from 10 verified hospitals using the established Maps focal selection after hospital and first-party identity checks. This audit evaluates the submitted entity https://www.medicana.com.tr/. Local competitive context uses one verified operating unit; its entry-page evidence does not replace the full audit identity or evidence. Maps/Nearby presentation refreshed from this audit's retained evidence on 2026-10-13T19:22:45+00:00. Original audit date, findings and scores are unchanged. Comparison scope: Representative local hospital market · within 2 km of Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi 1 local peer independently checked against the same 6 ALO.NET entry-page evidence controls. Only 1 verified local peer was available; at least 3 are required for a local comparison. The chart shows measured points only; no market position or ranking is inferred. X: Verified Entry-page Evidence (%) = PASS / 6. Y: Google Maps rating. Bubble area scales with review count. Maps supplies discovery and reputation metadata; ALO supplies the entry-page evidence. This is not a composite market score. The dark outline marks the focal business. All plotted web evidence uses peer_probe_v1, including the focal business; a probe is not a full audit. peer_probe_v1 · Representative branch entry-page probe; the full audit covers the brand/root. peer_probe_v1 · Peer probe only; no full audit linked. Representative Local Market is unavailable for this snapshot. ALO.NET Audited Cohort is the fallback. ALO.NET Audited Cohort: Compatible saved full audits. This population and its historical axes are separate from Local Market web probes.Representative Local Market · Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi
Evaluated local points (Healthcare)
Business / website Distance First seen on internet Online age PASS % Maps rating Reviews Evaluation / provenance You · Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi
medicana.com.tr0 m Oct 22, 2004 21y 11m 50% 3.6 4732 Control evidence
2026-10-08T00:40:14+00:00 · ALO entry-page evaluation + Google Places metadataEMOT HOSPITAL
emot.com.tr649 m Apr 26, 2004 22y 5m 33.3% 4.2 396 Control evidence
2026-10-08T00:40:15+00:00 · ALO entry-page evaluation + Google Places metadataEvidence data and provenance
Scope Representative Local Market · Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi Audited root/entity https://www.medicana.com.tr/ Selected physical unit Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi Unit type hospital Matched locations 10 Sector control pack healthcare_local_positioning_v1 First-party entry URL https://www.medicana.com.tr/international-izmir Entry selection Selected from the persisted first-party and Maps identity evidence. Selection provenance Hospital-primary identity and first-party verification. Selected unit Maps rating 3.6 Selected unit Maps reviews 4732 Entry-page evidence Evaluated with the sector control pack. Competitor probing 1 genuine local peer website probes were evaluated.
X: Verified Checks, 0-100 (this audit's eligible-control scale is planned to expand toward 100). Y: verified passes across 29 shared evaluated controls, shown as a count, not a percent. Marker size scales with Verified Checks; legend order and color are identity-only, not a leaderboard.Brand Verified Checks Shared passes You 31/62 14/29 memorial.com.tr 38/68 13/29 acibadem.com.tr 36/67 15/29 doruktip.com 34/56 18/29 dorukhospital.com 22/47 13/29 jimer.com.tr 25/53 11/29
Observed weakness: Search-to-care journey clarity is the selected weakness. The audited entry point did not present consistently decision-ready publisher search copy. This is high-confidence decision-journey evidence for the search-to-care journey; it does not establish the live Google result, patients' response, conversion or revenue. see details ↓
Observed strength: Machine-readable business clarity is the selected strength. Structured entity data was detected. This is high-confidence search and entity evidence. It does not verify search eligibility, visibility or customer response. No material strength cleared the evidence and materiality threshold in this audit. see details ↓
Management Decision: Management should assign a named owner and review date to search-to-care journey clarity, then use a relevant first-party journey indicator to test whether the exposure is reduced. It should preserve machine-readable business clarity as a managed public strength while keeping the conclusion within the cited confidence, cohort and measurement limits. The review should test whether patients can move from discovery to appointment action without ambiguity, separating observed change from assumed commercial impact. see details ↓
Supporting Market Evidence: Within the Türkiye audit market, Google Maps identified 12 qualified location listings associated with the audited entity. This is market-bounded evidence, not a complete worldwide physical footprint. see details ↓
search-to-care journey clarity: Observed evidence: Publisher-controlled search messaging is not consistently decision-ready. Why management should care: The first search interaction may not communicate service relevance or the appointment next step clearly enough for patients. What could go wrong: Patients may reach the site without a clear service or appointment route, weakening access actionability. see details ↓
machine-readable business clarity: Observed evidence: Structured entity data was detected. Management value: Search platforms may receive an incomplete relationship between the provider, locations, services and clinicians. The public signal should be protected, but it is not proof of a commercial outcome. see details ↓
public location and review visibility: Observed evidence: 3.4/5.0 from 25,608 reviews. Why management should care: Patient discovery and location confidence can vary by listing rather than by one consistent provider practice. What could go wrong: Patients may choose a clearer provider or contact the wrong location, increasing avoidable access and service friction. see details ↓
Audit Scope: Audit market: Türkiye. The market was estimated from the auditor's IP connection at submission. Google SERP and Google Maps evidence is limited to this market, including for global brands; the audit does not automatically classify the entity as global or regional. see details ↓
90 days Priorities
- What proposition and next step should a patient see at the search decision point, and who owns its consistency? see details ↓
- Does one accountable executive own listing accuracy, review response and escalation across every verified location? see details ↓
- Can the business retrieve the relevant patient-facing disclosure, including the exact version, timestamp and responsible owner, for the relevant patient decision? see details ↓
90-Day Priority Actions
- Improve the measured publisher-controlled search metadata, then recheck.Measured evidence supports a bounded remediation; ranking uses the recorded score gap, relevance weight, confidence and actionability.
- Investigate and remediate measured page-performance friction, then remeasure.Measured evidence supports a bounded remediation; ranking uses the recorded score gap, relevance weight, confidence and actionability.
- Review and correct the measured policy-disclosure weakness.Measured evidence supports a bounded remediation; ranking uses the recorded score gap, relevance weight, confidence and actionability.
Google PageSpeed/SEO — www.medicana.com.tr
Page speed shapes first impressions before a single word is read. A low Performance score — especially on mobile — means visitors leave before engaging. Google uses Core Web Vitals as a ranking signal, so poor speed hurts discoverability. The SEO score here reflects technical crawlability only, not full SEO strength. Accessibility measures inclusivity. Best Practices flags security and standards compliance. Together, these reveal how seriously the digital asset is maintained.
Evidence details ▾
Mobile: FAIL (30608.939412431 ms); Desktop: FAIL (4105.6918364678 ms). Lighthouse lab measurement of the tested entry; not field Core Web Vitals.
Mobile: PASS (0.028025659956992 unitless); Desktop: FAIL (0.48701633384711 unitless). Lighthouse lab measurement of the tested entry; not field Core Web Vitals.
Mobile: WARN (203 ms); Desktop: FAIL (489.5 ms). Lab main-thread blocking proxy; not field INP or verified real-user responsiveness.
Mobile: FAIL; Desktop: FAIL. Automated tested-page markup finding; not whole-site accessibility or WCAG compliance.
Mobile: PASS; Desktop: PASS. Automated tested-page markup finding; not whole-site accessibility or WCAG compliance.
Mobile: PASS; Desktop: PASS. Tested entry indexing directives only; no proof of search inclusion, robots access or whole-site crawlability. Intentional noindex needs publisher review.
Google Maps Reviews
ALO.NET KPI Profile
Six-pillar evidence coverage and status distribution. Verified Checks remains separate and no KPI maturity score is inferred.
Where is verified KPI evidence concentrated?
Raw deterministic evidence states are compared across all six approved pillars. Bar length is a count, not maturity or a KPI score.
Canonical findings and evidence ownership
Verified capabilities and gaps retain their evidence scope. Source observations do not prove rendered interaction. Findings are ordered by status and control ID; commercial impact is not ranked.
Online Discoverability
- Verified capability: Facebook profile linkage · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Instagram profile linkage · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: LinkedIn profile linkage · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: X profile linkage · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: YouTube profile linkage · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Entry-page indexing directives · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: PASS; Desktop: PASS. Tested entry indexing directives only; no proof of search inclusion, robots access or whole-site crawlability. Intentional noindex needs publisher review.
- Verified gap: Publisher description quality · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Publisher title quality · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Pinterest profile linkage · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: TikTok profile linkage · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Declared location linkage · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: Search result language consistency · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
Reputation & Trust
- Verified capability: About identity evidence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Secure connection · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Site icon presence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Matched listing rating · WARN · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: Blocklist exposure · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: DMARC policy · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: SPF policy · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Facebook public profile presence · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: Instagram public profile presence · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: LinkedIn public profile presence · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: X public profile presence · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: YouTube public profile presence · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: Cross-channel visual identity · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Facebook visual identity · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Instagram visual identity · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: LinkedIn visual identity · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: X visual identity · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: YouTube visual identity · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Comparable rating position · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: Content freshness evidence · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
Website Experience & Performance
- Verified capability: Form input labels · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: PASS; Desktop: PASS. Automated tested-page markup finding; not whole-site accessibility or WCAG compliance.
- Verified capability: Responsive viewport declaration · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Accessible button names · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: FAIL; Desktop: FAIL. Automated tested-page markup finding; not whole-site accessibility or WCAG compliance.
- Verified gap: Accessible link names · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: FAIL; Desktop: FAIL. Automated tested-page markup finding; not whole-site accessibility or WCAG compliance.
- Verified gap: Blocking responsiveness proxy (lab) · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: WARN (203 ms); Desktop: FAIL (489.5 ms). Lab main-thread blocking proxy; not field INP or verified real-user responsiveness.
- Verified gap: Layout stability (lab) · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: PASS (0.028025659956992 unitless); Desktop: FAIL (0.48701633384711 unitless). Lighthouse lab measurement of the tested entry; not field Core Web Vitals.
- Verified gap: Desktop lab performance · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Largest contentful paint (lab) · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface — Mobile: FAIL (30608.939412431 ms); Desktop: FAIL (4105.6918364678 ms). Lighthouse lab measurement of the tested entry; not field Core Web Vitals.
- Verified gap: Mobile lab performance · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Accessibility markup basics · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Image format hygiene · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
Measurement & Conversion Readiness
- Verified capability: Analytics script declaration · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface — Explicit declaration detected in inspected entry source. Presence does not establish execution, events, conversions or form delivery.
- Verified capability: Contact path evidence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Email markup actionability · FAIL · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Tag manager declaration · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface — Not detected from the inspected entry source; deferred or consent-dependent loading remains possible. Presence does not establish execution, events, conversions or form delivery.
- Evidence gap: Rendered interaction evidence · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Source observation: Directions markup actionability · INFORMATIONAL · Publisher-controlled surface — The observed address value is exposed as text without a matching native action in source markup.
- Source observation: Phone markup actionability · INFORMATIONAL · Publisher-controlled surface — The observed phone value has a matching native action in source markup.
- Source observation: Primary CTA markup · INFORMATIONAL · Publisher-controlled surface — At least one primary CTA exposes a native destination or form action in source markup.
Semantic & AI Readiness
- Verified capability: Brand Mentioned · PASS · Platform evidence
- Verified capability: Citation-free Mention · PASS · Platform evidence
- Verified capability: Own Domain Exposed · PASS · Platform evidence
- Verified capability: Search / Fan-out Observed · PASS · Platform evidence
- Verified capability: Locale content coherence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Breadcrumb structured data · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Organization structured identity · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Brand Recommended · FAIL · Platform evidence
- Verified gap: Conversion intent alignment · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Navigation intent alignment · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Primary offer clarity · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Local business structured identity · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Product or service structured identity · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Review structured data · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Search result message relevance · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
- Evidence gap: Query / Page Match · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
Legal & Privacy Governance
- Verified capability: Benchmark legal quality · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Freshness legal quality · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Implementation legal quality · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: On-site Legal Discoverability & Freshness · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Privacy & data protection indexed discoverability · PASS · Platform evidence
- Verified capability: Cookie notice presence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Privacy policy presence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified capability: Terms presence · PASS · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Cookie policy indexed discoverability · FAIL · Platform evidence
- Verified gap: Patient rights indexed discoverability · FAIL · Platform evidence
- Verified gap: Jurisdiction legal quality · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Sector legal quality · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Cookie & Consent · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Healthcare Entity / Controller Identity · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Patient Privacy & Sensitive Health Data · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Patient Rights / Complaints · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Verified gap: Privacy / Data Protection · WARN · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Accessibility / Patient-Facing Transparency · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Appointment & Medical Form Transparency · NOT_VERIFIED · Publisher-controlled surface
- Evidence gap: Appointment cancellation indexed discoverability · NOT_VERIFIED · Platform evidence
How do Mobile and Desktop Lighthouse results compare?
This compares the stored Lighthouse category results by device; the four categories are not averaged into a new score.
How is Google Maps review volume distributed across matched locations?
Bar length represents review volume only; rating is shown separately in labels and details.
Percentiles withheld: a defensible branch-level peer matching unit was not established.
Evidence readiness: CURRENT cohort 2/3 · Rating eligible 2/3 · Age adjusted 0/5. 3 are the minimum usable sample; 5 are targeted for normal publication.
Accessible KPI evidence table
| Pillar | Evaluated / applicable | PASS | WARN | FAIL | Unverified | Unavailable | Evidence coverage | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online Discoverability | 8 / 12 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 8 of 12 applicable controls evaluated | Retained canonical detail evidence; source confidence varies by control |
| Reputation & Trust | 4 / 20 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 4 of 20 applicable controls evaluated | Retained canonical detail evidence; source confidence varies by control |
| Website Experience & Performance | 11 / 11 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 11 of 11 applicable controls evaluated | Retained canonical detail evidence; source confidence varies by control |
| Measurement & Conversion Readiness | 4 / 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 of 8 applicable controls evaluated | Retained canonical detail evidence; source confidence varies by control |
| Semantic & AI Readiness | 14 / 16 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 14 of 16 applicable controls evaluated | Retained canonical detail evidence; source confidence varies by control |
| Legal & Privacy Governance | 17 / 20 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 17 of 20 applicable controls evaluated | Retained canonical detail evidence; source confidence varies by control |
Accessible PageSpeed data table
| Device | Performance | Accessibility | Best Practices | SEO | Source collection time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile | 52 | 75 | 96 | 85 | 2026-10-08T00:39:51.981Z |
| Desktop | 28 | 75 | 96 | 85 | 2026-10-08T00:39:52.334Z |
Accessible Maps location data table
| Location | Reviews | Rating | Focal status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medicana International İzmir Hastanesi | 4732 | 3.6 | Selected focal branch |
| Medicana BURSA HOSPITAL | 3889 | 3.6 | Matched location |
| Medicana Kadıköy Hospital | 2585 | 3.5 | Matched location |
| Medicana Ankara Hastanesi | 2517 | 3.1 | Matched location |
| Medicana Ataşehir Hastanesi | 2394 | 3.0 | Matched location |
| Medicana Zincirlikuyu Hastanesi | 2244 | 3.6 | Matched location |
| Medicana Ataköy Hastanesi | 1604 | 4.0 | Matched location |
| Medicana Bahçelievler | 1408 | 3.3 | Matched location |
| Medicana Hospital in Konya | 1385 | 3.1 | Matched location |
| Medicana Avcılar | 1153 | 3.6 | Matched location |
| MEDICANA Çamlıca Hospital | 1121 | 2.7 | Matched location |
| Medicana Sivas Hastanesi | 576 | 2.9 | Matched location |
Measurement & Conversion Readiness
Evidence details ▾
Explicit declaration detected in inspected entry source. Presence does not establish execution, events, conversions or form delivery.
Not detected from the inspected entry source; deferred or consent-dependent loading remains possible. Presence does not establish execution, events, conversions or form delivery.
Google-Indexed Legal Discoverability
Indexed-search discoverability only. This is separate from audited-site presence in Trust Basics and content completeness in Legal Check.
Indexed-search coverage: 4 of 17 concept-locale checks were evaluated; 2 were clearly discoverable, 1 were weak or ambiguous, 1 were not detected, and 13 were unavailable. An unavailable indexed-search check is not evidence that the policy is absent from the live website.
Strongest indexed evidenceGizlilik Politikası - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
Indexed evidence URLs, titles and snippets
- Gizlilik Politikası - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
Gizlilik Politikası'nın, web sitemiz, online işlemleriniz ve Medicard işlemleriniz ile birlikte bu Gizlilik Politikası'nın kapsamında olan hastanelerimizde ...
- Kişisel Verilerin Korunması - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
KİŞİSEL VERİLERİN KORUNMASI AYDINLATMA METNİ 6698 Sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu(KVKK) ve Kişisel Sağlık Verileri Hakkında Yönetmelik ...
- Hasta ve Yakınlarının Hakları Nelerdir? - Medicana
Hukuki Korunma Yolları Hakkı Hasta hakları uygulamalarının yürütülmesi amacıyla sağlık kurum ve kuruluşları bünyesinde Hasta Haklari Birimi oluşturulur. 15 ...
- Bilgi Güvenliği Politikası - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
Gizlilik Politikası · MEDICANA Web ve Yayın Kurulu · Ticari Elektronik İleti İzni. İkinci Görüş Alın. Hastane seçin, MEDICANA ZİNCİRLİKUYU, MEDICANA ATAKÖY ...
- Hastane Şikayet Politikamız - Medicana
... • Hasta Hakları Bölümü, sizlerden gelen öneri ve görüşleriniz ile hastanemizin gelişimine katkı sağlar. Şikayetleriniz ve olumsuz görüşlerinizle de ...
- Site Kullanım Koşulları - Medicana
... Gizlilik Politikası"nda yer alan hükümleri ve bu sitedeki diğer talimatlarla bağlı olmayı taahhüt etmektesiniz. Medicana Sağlık Grubu; "Kullanım Koşulları ...
- Özlem AKBULUT - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
2021 yılı itibarıyla Medicana Sağlık Grubu'nda Grup Kalite ve Hasta Hakları Direktörü olarak görevini sürdürmektedir. Kurumsal. HAKKIMIZDA · VİZYONUMUZ ...
- Çerez Politikası - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
Yasal Metinler ve Politikalar · Site Kullanım Koşulları · Bilgi Güvenliği Politikası · Kişisel Verilerin Korunması · Çerez Politikası · Gizlilik Politikası · MEDICANA ...
- Yönetim Kadromuz | Medicana Sağlık Grubu
Kalite ve Hasta Hakları Direktörü · Yalçın YILDIRIR. Biyomedikal Direktörü · Fidan UZPAK NAKİR. Kurumsal Faturalama Direktörü · Gül UĞURLU. Marka ve Kurumsal ...
- MEDICANA Web ve Yayın Kurulu - Medicana Sağlık Grubu
Yasal Metinler ve Politikalar · Site Kullanım Koşulları · Bilgi Güvenliği Politikası · Kişisel Verilerin Korunması · Çerez Politikası · Gizlilik Politikası · MEDICANA ...
- MEDİCANA INTERNATIONAL ANKARA HASTANESİ
Hasta Hakları. Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Kalite ve Akreditasyon. Hasta Değerlendirmesi. Hasta Güvenliği. Ağrı Yönetimi. Vital Bulguların Alınması. İlaç Uygulamaları.
This control reviews indexed-search discoverability only. It does not establish that a document is current or present on the live website, and legal compliance was not verified.
Legal Check (Sectoral & Jurisdiction Legal Intelligence)
ip_estimateScore Breakdown
Top Legal Gaps
- Strengthen the public privacy notice with clearly layered purposes, legal basis, rights, transfers and retention information.
- Provide discoverable cookie information and verify usable consent/preferences behavior in a rendered browser.
- Provide a distinct patient-facing explanation of sensitive health-data handling under the Türkiye-market transparency lens.
Sector-Critical Findings
Benchmark summary: Comparison covers discoverability, patient and health-data transparency, rights and complaints, policy layering, market localization, accessibility and observable implementation; global references do not import foreign legal rules or certify legal equivalence.
Evidence Ledger
Evidence scope: legal completeness and applicability. A Trust Basics PASS can confirm that a public surface was detected while this card still reports WARN for incomplete content. Indexed-search availability is assessed separately and does not override either result.
Verified Legal Topics
Evaluated Legal Criteria
Core Legal Surfaces
Consent & Implementation
Benchmark Reference Records
How this score is calculated: Legal Check combines applicable jurisdiction/market transparency (45%), sector-specific legal transparency (25%), observable implementation (15%), maturity against curated sector benchmarks (10%), and freshness/ownership signals (5%). The audit evaluates public website evidence for online-reputation and transparency purposes; it is not a legal opinion or certification.
Audit-market context: The market is taken from the country selected for the audit. If no country is selected, ALO.NET Audit estimates the market from the auditor’s IP connection. Market context guides localized comparison; it does not by itself determine the audited company’s governing law.
Benchmark corpus: Comparison uses a versioned, periodically reviewed benchmark and regulatory-reference corpus. Legal pages and guidance can change over time, so the result reflects the corpus version and evidence collected for this audit.
Engine legal-check-engine-v1.0.0 · Jurisdiction pack tr-legal-transparency-v1.0.0 · Corpus healthcare-benchmarks-2026-q3-v1
Competitive Reputation Context
Observed mobile PageSpeed at 52/100 may weaken patient decision confidence; no comparable-peer ranking, overall reputation classification or financial outcome is inferred.
Comparable peers must match sector, business model, brand scale and market context. Each reputation platform is interpreted as its own layer; Google Maps ratings are not blended with Tripadvisor, Trustpilot, OTA, social, SERP or PageSpeed signals.
Public reputation should be framed as patient decision confidence, not popularity. Weak doctor identity, weak clinic trust signals, missing medical disclaimers, poor structured data, or thin educational content should be read as patient trust and medical decision journey risks.
Sector classification is based on bounded audited-root evidence. Each row-level observation remains separately limited by its stated crawl, provider and verification conditions.
Semantic Check
This marketing-oriented comparison examines whether homepage promise, navigation intent and conversion actions remain semantically coherent across the public website evidence collected for this audit.
Evaluated findings may contribute to Verified Checks, which is separate from the future 100-point KPI score. A Not verifiable Navigation-to-Landing Alignment is a WARN coverage state, never a failure; other unavailable, unverified and informational evidence is excluded.
Concrete offer language is observable, but the primary homepage promise relies partly on supporting copy for clarity.
- Medicana Sağlık Grubu, birçok ilde bulunan hastanelerinde, alanında uzman hekim kadrosu ile güncel tıbbi yaklaşımlar ve modern tıbbi teknolojilerden yararlanarak sağlık hizmeti sunmaktadır. — https://www.medicana.com.tr/
The phone CTA is actionable, but its tel: target is domestic-only and does not expose an international dialing prefix.
- 444 6 334 — tel:4446334
- 0850 460 6334 — tel:08504606334
- E-Randevu — https://www.medicana.com.tr/online-randevu
The evaluated first-party footer prose is coherent with the explicitly declared page locale.
- Türkiye'nin önde gelen sağlık grubu olarak, 19 hastanemiz ve binlerce doktorumuz ile sağlıklı yarınlar için çalışıyoruz. 7/24 Sağlık Hattı 444 6 334 E-posta [email protected] Adres Küçükbakkalköy, Allianz Tower, Kayışdağı Cd. No:1 Kat: 21, 22 Medicana Hakkımızda Hastanelerimiz Tıbbi Birimler Anlaşmalı Kurumlar Hekimler — https://www.medicana.com.tr/
Not verifiable: A live, domain-matched Google description was not available, so marketing relevance was not inferred from publisher metadata.
Frontend Interaction Check
This interaction-oriented review examines whether public contact details and conversion controls expose usable native actions in the collected website evidence.
Source markup does not by itself prove visual clickability. A Not observed contact or CTA input is a FAIL only after accessible bounded source evidence was evaluated; browser-required, restricted and unverified observations are excluded from Verified Checks and canonical KPI scoring.
The observed phone value has a matching native action in source markup.
Email contact text was not reliably observed in the bounded homepage evidence.
The observed address value is exposed as text without a matching native action in source markup.
At least one primary CTA exposes a native destination or form action in source markup.
Not verifiable: Source markup cannot prove visual affordance, pointer hit testing, overlay interference, focus visibility or runtime activation.
Trust Basic Web Scraping
Evidence scope: audited-site observation. A green dot means the signal was detected from the audited entry point or bounded first-party evidence. It does not mean the same information was available to the indexed-search provider or that its legal completeness was verified.
Logo Consistency / Visual Identity
Schema.org Basic Check
Google SERP Preview
Google SERP stands for Google Search Engine Results Page — the page of results shown when someone searches online for a brand, product, person, service, or related topic. It is often the very first impression a potential customer, partner, or journalist has of the searched entity. Optimizing these elements is frequently one of the highest-return SEO actions available, because it can influence click-through rate before the visitor ever lands on the website.
Note: The preview below is based on publisher-provided page metadata, structured data and accessible page content for www.medicana.com.tr; it is not a live Google result scrape or capture. Google may show different title links, snippets and sitelinks by query, locale, device, language and index timing.
AI Search Readiness
Six query-scoped observations distinguish page matching, search-assisted answers, source exposure, brand mentions and recommendations. These observations describe the captured query and response, not general AI visibility or ranking. Unverified observations are excluded from Check Score.
Measured observations: 5/6 · Unverified: 1/6. Check Score uses the evaluated observations.
Audited AI query: Medicana Sağlık Grubu İstanbul önerilir mi?
No complete, scope-matched observation was captured for this measurement.
SEARCH ASSISTED AI ANSWER CAPTURED
Query: Medicana Sağlık Grubu İstanbul önerilir mi? · Observed: 2026-10-08T00:40:19+00:00
OWN DOMAIN IN AI REFERENCES
Query: Medicana Sağlık Grubu İstanbul önerilir mi? · Observed: 2026-10-08T00:40:19+00:00
EXACT BRAND IN AI ANSWER
Query: Medicana Sağlık Grubu İstanbul önerilir mi? · Observed: 2026-10-08T00:40:19+00:00
NO SUPPORTED EXPLICIT RECOMMENDATION
Query: Medicana Sağlık Grubu İstanbul önerilir mi? · Observed: 2026-10-08T00:40:19+00:00
BRAND MENTION HAS ATTACHED CITATION
Query: Medicana Sağlık Grubu İstanbul önerilir mi? · Observed: 2026-10-08T00:40:19+00:00
Captured answer and citations
Complete captured mapping. Links show provider attachments to answer blocks; source support for every claim is not independently verified.
İstanbul'daki Medicana Sağlık Grubu hastaneleri (Çamlıca, Kadıköy, Bahçelievler, International Istanbul/Beylikdüzü vb.), geniş hekim kadrosu, teknolojik altyapısı ve yaygın hizmet ağıyla kentin önde gelen özel sağlık kuruluşları arasında yer alır. Ancak hasta deneyimleri hastanenin lokasyonuna, ilgili departmana ve hatta doğrudan doktora göre değişiklik gösterebilmektedir.
Genel olarak hasta geri bildirimlerinde öne çıkan bazı unsurlar şunlardır:
Avantajları / Olumlu Yönler
Geniş Branş ve Hekim Çeşitliliği: Birçok farklı ihtisas alanında profesör, doçent ve uzman hekime erişim imkanı tanır.
Fiziki ve Teknoloji Donanımı: Görüntüleme, yoğun bakım ve cerrahi operasyon altyapıları genellikle modern tıbbi standartlara uygundur.
Konum Alternatifleri: İstanbul'un hem Avrupa hem Anadolu yakasında birden fazla hastaneye sahip olması ulaşım ve acil durumlar açısından kolaylık sağlar.
Dikkat Edilmesi Gereken / Eleştirilen Yönler
Ücret Politikaları: Özel sağlık sigortası veya tamamlayıcı sağlık sigortası kapsamı dışında kalan işlemler, muayene ve tetkik ücretleri yüksek bulunabilmektedir.
Yoğunluk ve Bekleme Süreleri: Özellikle popüler hekimlerin olduğu günlerde veya acil servislerde yoğunluğa bağlı olarak bekleme süreleri uzayabilir.
Hizmet Kalitesinin Lokasyona Göre Değişmesi: Kurum genel bir standart sunsa da, hastanelerin operasyonel yoğunluğu şubeden şubeye farklılık gösterebilir.
Doğru bir karar verebilmek için gitmeyi düşündüğünüz spesifik şubeyi ve branşı göz önünde bulundurarak hekim araştırması yapmanız faydalı olacaktır. Kurumun resmi Medicana Sağlık Grubu sayfasından şubelere ve hekim kadrolarına göz atabilirsiniz.
https://www.medicana.com.tr/kurumsal/hakkimizda
Öneride bulunabilmem için:
Hangi yakada/lokasyonda bir hastane arıyorsunuz?
Hangi branşta veya özel bir rahatsızlık için hizmet almayı düşünüyorsunuz?
Belirtirseniz daha lokal ve hedefe yönelik bir değerlendirme yapabiliriz.
Supporting technical observations
About: PASS · Contact: PASS · Schema types: Hospital, PostalAddress, Person, BreadcrumbList, ListItem. Technical presence supports interpretation; it does not prove an AI answer, recommendation, citation or indexing.
Hospital comparison withheld: one or more retained listings lack a verified hospital identity. Original audit findings, scores and dates are unchanged.
