Latest #0042 · GENERIC BLAST · F · 0.1/10
    Offenses tagged 673
    Cases on file 151
    Most common OVER-LENGTH
    Worst score 0.1 / 10
    Channels Email · LinkedIn · SMS
    Latest #0042 · GENERIC BLAST · F · 0.1/10
    Offenses tagged 673
    Cases on file 151
    Most common OVER-LENGTH
    Worst score 0.1 / 10
    Channels Email · LinkedIn · SMS
    Public forensic recordEST · 2026

    YourOutreach
    SUCKS

    What this is

    The first named, public quality standard for cold outreach. Every failure pattern has a name, a weight, and a case on file. Every offense is backed by external research. Every sender is permanently redacted. The critique is structural, never personal.

    Why this exists
    95%
    Of cold emails ignored or deleted within 3 seconds
    Lead Gen Jay · 50K+ email analysis · 2026
    −40%
    Decline in reply rates since 2019
    Reachoutly / Belkins · 8.5% → 5.1% · 2025
    15%
    Of buyers say outreach feels personalized
    Gartner Future of Sales 2025
    5%
    Of senders consistently personalize every message
    Salesso SDR Statistics 2025
    Case dossierLive
    673
    Offenses tagged
    15% crit58% maj28% min
    151
    Cases filed
    30
    Offense types
    Lowest on record
    0.1 / 10
    Case #0042
    // The evidence

    The failure patterns are measurable. The fixes are specific.

    +340%
    Reply rate lift for real personalization vs. simulated
    Personalization that goes beyond a name, referencing a specific post, event, or milestone, produces a 340% higher reply rate. FAKE-RESEARCH is the taxonomy term for the 95% who don't achieve it.
    Outreaches.ai 2025 Benchmarks
    −28%
    Reply rate decline as AI-generated volume doubled
    As AI scaled outreach volume, reply rates fell proportionally. More messages. Fewer conversations. The offense patterns in this archive are the primary outputs of AI tools operating without a quality standard.
    Salesloft State of AI in Sales 2024
    4.77%
    SaaS InMail response rate, lowest industry
    The industry that sends the most cold outreach achieves the worst results. Template saturation driven by VAGUE-ICP and FAKE-RESEARCH offenses appearing in 100% of SaaS cases in this archive.
    Salesso LinkedIn InMail Statistics 2025 + YOS Archive

    Not another benchmark report. A quality standard.

    Every benchmark report measures outcomes, reply rate, meeting rate, conversion rate. None measures structural quality: whether the message itself is sound before it's sent. YourOutreachSUCKS is the first named, public, version-controlled framework for evaluating structural quality in cold outreach.

    The offense taxonomy documents the specific patterns that drive the 95% failure rate. The scoring rubric makes them measurable. The archive makes them visible. The methodology makes the whole system citable.

    Cite: Gierlich, J. (2026). YourOutreachSUCKS Scoring Methodology v2.1. youroutreachsucks.com/methodology
    What this is and what it isn't
    A structural quality framework, the decisions in the message, not the outcomes of sending it
    A named, citable taxonomy, 30 offense types, each weighted and case-evidenced
    Backed by external research, every offense type validated against independent data
    A rewrite for every case, showing what good looks like and why
    Not a response rate optimizer, outcome metrics are useful; structural quality is a prior question
    Not a hall of shame, senders are permanently redacted. The critique is structural, never personal
    // The charges

    The same offenses, over and over

    Full taxonomy →

    Most cold outreach fails for the same handful of reasons. Fake personalization, premature asks, buzzword-loaded pitches, manufactured urgency. These aren't style problems - they're pattern failures.

    Editor's note
    The fix is never longer.
    It's more specific.
    Every audit includes a full rewrite
    // The numbersAll cases
    0
    Total offenses tagged
    across
    151 cases
    4.5
    Avg offenses
    per case
    5.4
    Avg score
    across cases
    // Filing procedure

    How a case is built

    01
    Evidence received
    Outreach arrives
    Cold emails, LinkedIn DMs, SMS. Submitted by recipients or sourced from inboxes. Sender identity is sealed on intake — permanently.
    02
    Forensic annotation
    Every phrase is tagged
    Each offense is identified, categorized against the taxonomy, and weighted by severity. Exhibits are marked inline. The score is computed.
    03
    Case published
    Verdict, analysis, rewrite
    The full audit goes live — evidence, scoring breakdown, critique, and a rewritten version showing exactly what good looks like.
    // File a complaint

    Got evidence
    worth filing?

    Submit the worst cold outreach in your inbox. We'll dissect it, score it, and publish the case. You'll be notified when it goes live.

    01We tag every offense against the full taxonomy
    02We score the message with a full breakdown
    03We rewrite it - showing what better looks like
    04Sender identity sealed. Critique is structural, never personal
    The evidence
    We'll email when your case goes live. One email. No marketing, no follow-up.