Scanned sites / arroofing.us

SEO report for arroofing.us DR 0

The latest Site Spider scan of arroofing.us, with 1 scan on record. Each scan is at its own address, for example /domain/arroofing-us/2026-09-11-2012.

DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.

Latest scan

Scanned 2026-09-11 20:12:01 UTC, finished 2026-09-11 20:19:03 UTC

Site: https://arroofing.us/

Download SQLite databaseEvery page and asset from this scan, with the crawl events, in one file.

83/ 100Good

On September 11, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 5 pages and 100 assets of arroofing.us, starting from https://arroofing.us/. It scored 83 out of 100, a good result. 5 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by heavy assets (8), sitemap coverage (2), title tags (1); 16 checks passed. Most of the points went to heavy assets (−4.8), sitemap coverage (−4), title tags (−3.3). 6 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 10 checks were not run because the crawl fetched nothing for them. The list below shows each check's result, the fix plan, when present, explains what to do first, and the security review at the end of the page covers headers, transport, libraries and exposed files.

Security review: Medium3 medium, 2 low and 1 info findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
5
Assets fetched
100
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
5 of 27
CoverageComplete crawl

105 of 105 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 3 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags1 issue
    1 of 3 pages have title issues.
    −3.3 points
  • Meta descriptions1 issue
    1 of 3 pages have meta description issues.
    −2.7 points
  • HeadingsOK
    0 of 3 pages have heading issues.
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites3 noted
    0 destinations answered with an error, 1 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 3 destinations checked.
  • Redirects4 noted
    4 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses4 noted
    4 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 2 of them are pages, 0 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
  • Rate limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • IndexabilityOK
    0 of 3 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
  • Image alt textOK
    0 of 0 image references have no alt attribute.
  • Heavy assets8 issues
    8 assets larger than 500 KB among 100 fetched assets.
    −4.8 points
  • Orphan pagesOK
    0 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverage2 issues
    3 sitemaps listing 5 URLs: 0 crawled pages missing, 2 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −4 points
  • Internal link countsOK
    Internal link counts for 3 pages; none is a dead end or buried.
  • Thin content1 issue
    1 of 3 pages have fewer than 200 words.
    −2.7 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format2 noted
    2 of 5 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • CanonicalsOK
    0 of 3 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives3 noted
    3 pages carry a robots directive; 0 carry none.
  • Anchor textOK
    Every internal link has descriptive, followed anchor text.
  • Title and heading structureOK
    0 of 3 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better.
  • Image weight and alt lengthOK
    No image is over 100 KB or carries alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomaliesOK
    No redirect loops, header redirects or pages served as something other than HTML.
  • HTML and head validationNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
  • hreflangNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
  • Structured dataNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
  • Near duplicatesNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
  • Soft 404sOK
    None of 3 pages answering 200 reads like an error page.
  • AccessibilityNot checked
    Not checked: the accessibility audit runs in the browser. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to run it.
  • Link positionsNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before link positions were recorded. Scan the site again to run it.
  • PaginationNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
  • Headers and cookiesOK
    0 cookies set by the site; 11 response headers recorded across 105 URLs.
  • Orphans in searchNot checked
    Not checked: import a Search Console Pages export on the scan page to find pages Google shows that the site does not link to.
  • Link ScoreOK
    Link Score (internal PageRank, 0-100) for 3 pages; 0 hold almost none (10 or less).
  • JavaScript renderingNot checked
    Not checked: this scan did not render pages. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to compare the served HTML with what a browser builds.
  • PageSpeed Insights3 noted
    Mobile performance 58 on average across 3 pages; 3 below Google's good thresholds.
  • SpellingNot checked
    Not checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.

Where this site sits among all scanned sites

2347 sites, median 79%, average 78%

arroofing.us scores 83%, higher than 64% of the 2347 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0581150%: 0 sites1%: 0 sites2%: 0 sites3%: 0 sites4%: 0 sites5%: 0 sites6%: 0 sites7%: 0 sites8%: 0 sites9%: 1 site10%: 0 sites11%: 0 sites12%: 0 sites13%: 0 sites14%: 1 site15%: 0 sites16%: 0 sites17%: 0 sites18%: 0 sites19%: 0 sites20%: 0 sites21%: 1 site22%: 0 sites23%: 0 sites24%: 0 sites25%: 0 sites26%: 0 sites27%: 0 sites28%: 1 site29%: 0 sites30%: 0 sites31%: 0 sites32%: 0 sites33%: 1 site34%: 0 sites35%: 2 sites36%: 2 sites37%: 1 site38%: 3 sites39%: 1 site40%: 3 sites41%: 1 site42%: 1 site43%: 3 sites44%: 1 site45%: 4 sites46%: 5 sites47%: 5 sites48%: 3 sites49%: 7 sites50%: 5 sites51%: 5 sites52%: 10 sites53%: 6 sites54%: 8 sites55%: 9 sites56%: 8 sites57%: 12 sites58%: 18 sites59%: 9 sites60%: 16 sites61%: 12 sites62%: 20 sites63%: 27 sites64%: 22 sites65%: 32 sites66%: 35 sites67%: 35 sites68%: 34 sites69%: 47 sites70%: 44 sites71%: 69 sites72%: 71 sites73%: 70 sites74%: 68 sites75%: 72 sites76%: 87 sites77%: 92 sites78%: 107 sites79%: 85 sites80%: 107 sites81%: 105 sites82%: 115 sites83%: 103 sites84%: 107 sites85%: 88 sites86%: 70 sites87%: 73 sites88%: 59 sites89%: 66 sites90%: 35 sites91%: 47 sites92%: 38 sites93%: 24 sites94%: 17 sites95%: 12 sites96%: 12 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 5 sites99%: 2 sites100%: 68 sites83% here100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

Green 90% and up (Excellent), lime 75 to 89 (Good), amber 50 to 74 (Needs work), red below 50 (Poor).

Internal link map

Loading the link map...

Start page (centre)OKRedirectErrorOrphanLinked from most pagesOne inbound link or noneRings = clicks from the start page. Size = inbound links. Drag to pan, scroll to zoom, click a page to see only its links.

Security review

Written by gpt-4o-mini from 16 checks over the crawl

Your website has several key security issues, particularly the absence of vital security headers. This puts your site at risk for various attacks, including clickjacking and content injection. Implementing the recommended changes will greatly enhance your site's security.

  • 0 high
  • 3 medium
  • 2 low
  • 1 info
  1. 1

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, visitors can be intercepted on the first request when they do not use HTTPS.

    Fix: Add the header `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains` to all HTTPS responses.

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    No Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium

    Why it matters: Lack of CSP allows unrestricted loading of potentially malicious scripts, styles, and frames.

    Fix: Implement a header like `Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self';` to control resource loading.

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  3. 3

    Missing X-Frame-Options for Clickjacking ProtectionMedium

    Why it matters: Without this header, your site can be embedded in frames by malicious sites, leading to clickjacking attacks.

    Fix: Include the header `X-Frame-Options: DENY` in your HTTP responses.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  4. 4

    Lack of X-Content-Type-OptionsLow

    Why it matters: Without this protection, browsers may misinterpret file types, leading to script execution vulnerabilities.

    Fix: Add `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` to all HTML responses.

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  5. 5

    Third-party Scripts Without Subresource IntegrityLow

    Why it matters: Scripts from external domains lack integrity checks, risking unauthorized script execution.

    Fix: Consider implementing a Content Security Policy that includes these domains or use Subresource Integrity (SRI) for these scripts.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

  6. 6

    Sensitive Paths Listed in robots.txtInfo

    Why it matters: Listing paths like /wp-admin/ in robots.txt can guide attackers to sensitive areas without restricting access.

    Fix: Remove sensitive paths from the robots.txt file or secure them with proper access controls.

    Evidence: Sensitive paths in robots.txt

What the checks found

  • FoundHTTP Strict Transport SecurityMedium

    No HTML page sends strict-transport-security. Without it a visitor who types the address without https:// can be intercepted on the first request.

    • https://arroofing.us/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://arroofing.us/gallery → no strict-transport-security
    • https://arroofing.us/cookie-policy → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 3 HTML pages send a Content-Security-Policy header or meta tag, so the browser has no restriction on where scripts, styles and frames may load from.

    • https://arroofing.us/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://arroofing.us/gallery → no content-security-policy
    • https://arroofing.us/cookie-policy → no content-security-policy
  • FoundClickjacking protectionMedium

    No HTML page sends x-frame-options. Without X-Frame-Options (or a CSP frame-ancestors directive) the pages can be embedded in a frame on another site and overlaid with invisible controls.

    • https://arroofing.us/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://arroofing.us/gallery → no x-frame-options
    • https://arroofing.us/cookie-policy → no x-frame-options
  • FoundMIME sniffing protectionLow

    No HTML page sends x-content-type-options. Without X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff a browser may run a file as a script because of its contents rather than its declared type.

    • https://arroofing.us/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://arroofing.us/gallery → no x-content-type-options
    • https://arroofing.us/cookie-policy → no x-content-type-options
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 3 other domains without Subresource Integrity, so a compromise of any of them changes what runs on this site. (Tag managers and analytics rarely support SRI; a Content-Security-Policy that names these hosts is the usual control.)

    • www.googletagmanager.com (3 script tags)
    • kit.fontawesome.com (3 script tags)
    • www.google.com (1 script tag)
  • NoteSensitive paths in robots.txt

    robots.txt lists 1 path that look private. robots.txt is public and does not restrict access, so it doubles as a map for anyone probing the site; those paths need real access control.

    • Disallow: /wp-admin/
7 checks passed, 3 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 3 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

    The Server header names a product without a version, and there is no X-Powered-By header.

  • OKMixed content

    No HTTPS page loads a script, stylesheet, font or image over plain HTTP.

  • OKForms over HTTPS

    1 form found, all on HTTPS pages posting to HTTPS addresses.

  • OKVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    2 library versions recognised, none with known vulnerabilities.

  • OKKeys and secrets in page code

    No API keys, tokens or private keys were found in the sampled HTML and scripts.

  • OKExposed files and listings

    None of the crawled URLs is a configuration file, backup, dump, repository folder or directory listing.

  • Not applicableReferrer policy

    This scan predates the crawler recording the headers this check needs. Rescan the site to check it.

  • Not applicablePermissions policy

    This scan predates the crawler recording the headers this check needs. Rescan the site to check it.

  • Not applicableCookie flags

    This scan predates the crawler recording the headers this check needs. Rescan the site to check it.

A passive review of what the crawl recorded: response headers, page and script contents and the URLs it found. It does not probe the site, test TLS settings or look for files that were not linked. Generated automatically; verify each finding against your own site before acting on it.

Earlier scans of arroofing.us

No other scans of this site yet.

Sites scoring near arroofing.us

Their neighbours in the SEO rank table, which orders every scanned site by health score.

DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.

This report was produced by the DIY SEO Hub Site Spider crawling arroofing.us from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own arroofing.us?