Scanned sites / bing.com / 2026-09-13-0242

bing.com scan from 2026-09-13 02:42:50 UTC DR 93

A newer scan exists. See the latest report for bing.com.

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

Scan 2026-09-13-0242

Scanned 2026-09-13 02:42:50 UTC, finished 2026-09-13 04:10:23 UTC. Found with 42backlinks.com tool directory

Not a full crawl. The site rate-limited the crawler (25 requests answered 429), so the scan finished early with 4948 URLs left unfetched. Results cover what was crawled.

Site: https://bing.com/

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

71/ 100Needs workNot a full crawl

On September 13, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 1000 pages and 52 assets of bing.com, starting from https://bing.com/. It scored 71 out of 100, a result that needs work. 11 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by indexability (475), title tags (463), image alt text (10,302); 7 checks passed. Most of the points went to indexability (−5.2), title tags (−5.1), image alt text (−4.4). 9 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: Medium2 medium and 3 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
1000
Assets fetched
52
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
11 of 27
CoverageJob finished, partial coverage

1,052 of 6,000 discovered URLs were fetched, 23,132 left out by the 5,000-page and 1,000-asset budget, 4,948 skipped when the crawl was cut short. The job finished, but the crawl did not reach everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 300 link destinations on other sites were checked, 3309 left unchecked.

  • Title tags463 issues
    463 of 467 pages have title issues. 443 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −5.1 points
  • Meta descriptions464 issues
    464 of 467 pages have meta description issues. 443 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −4.1 points
  • Headings465 issues
    465 of 467 pages have heading issues. 443 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −3.1 points
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites17 issues
    17 destinations answered with an error, 84 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), 3309 were left unchecked by the per-scan cap, of 300 destinations checked.
    −0.7 points
  • Redirects65 issues
    68 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
    −0.3 points
  • Non-200 responses68 noted
    68 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 66 of them are pages, 0 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
  • Rate limited24 issues
    24 URLs (24 pages) answered HTTP 429 on every try, so the crawler backed off and moved on without analysing them. A site that throttles crawlers this hard can throttle search engines too.
    −0.1 points
  • Indexability475 issues
    475 of 529 indexable pages have indexability warnings. 381 pages noindex by design.
    −5.2 points
  • Image alt text10,302 issues
    10302 of 14208 image references have no alt attribute. 100 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −4.4 points
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 52 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pages13 issues
    13 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
    −0.1 points
  • Sitemap coverage467 issues
    1 sitemap listing 0 URLs: 467 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −3.1 points
  • Internal link counts440 noted
    Internal link counts for 500 pages; 440 worth a look.
  • Thin content313 issues
    313 of 467 pages have fewer than 200 words. 443 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −2.8 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format994 noted
    994 of 1000 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals909 noted
    909 of 910 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives409 noted
    409 pages carry a robots directive; 501 carry none.
  • Anchor text671 noted
    671 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure154 noted
    154 of 467 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 443 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length432 noted
    0 images over 100 KB; 432 with 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 910 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; 13 response headers recorded across 1052 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 910 pages; 870 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 Insights5 noted
    Mobile performance 81 on average across 5 pages; 5 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 scan sits among all scanned sites

2337 sites, median 79%, average 78%

bing.com scores 71%, higher than 20% of the 2337 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%: 6 sites50%: 5 sites51%: 5 sites52%: 10 sites53%: 6 sites54%: 8 sites55%: 9 sites56%: 8 sites57%: 12 sites58%: 17 sites59%: 9 sites60%: 16 sites61%: 12 sites62%: 19 sites63%: 27 sites64%: 22 sites65%: 32 sites66%: 35 sites67%: 35 sites68%: 34 sites69%: 47 sites70%: 44 sites71%: 70 sites72%: 71 sites73%: 69 sites74%: 68 sites75%: 72 sites76%: 87 sites77%: 92 sites78%: 107 sites79%: 84 sites80%: 108 sites81%: 105 sites82%: 115 sites83%: 99 sites84%: 106 sites85%: 87 sites86%: 71 sites87%: 74 sites88%: 58 sites89%: 64 sites90%: 36 sites91%: 47 sites92%: 38 sites93%: 24 sites94%: 16 sites95%: 12 sites96%: 12 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 4 sites99%: 2 sites100%: 69 sites71% 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.

Fix plan

Written by gpt-4o-mini from the scan findings

Written from an earlier version of the analysis. The findings on this page have been recomputed since, so counts and labels here may differ from what the plan describes. The advice still points at the same checks.

The crawl results highlight several key areas needing attention, particularly involving redirects, non-200 responses, and SEO elements like titles and meta descriptions. Addressing these will enhance site performance and searchability.

  1. 1

    Fix Redirects

    Why: Ensures pages return the correct content and improves user experience.

    How: Review and update the 68 redirecting URLs to point directly to the valid page or remove unnecessary redirects.

    Checks: redirects

  2. 2

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: Maintains site accessibility, improving user and bot experience.

    How: Investigate the 68 URLs returning non-200 status codes and rectify the issues causing them to not respond correctly.

    Checks: status-codes

  3. 3

    Reduce Rate Limit Errors

    Why: Improves crawler access and ensures search engines index all content.

    How: Review server settings and potentially increase the rate limit for crawlers to reduce the 24 HTTP 429 responses.

    Checks: rate-limited

  4. 4

    Enhance Title Tags

    Why: Critical for search engine visibility and user engagement.

    How: Update the 463 pages with title issues, ensuring each has a unique, relevant title under 60 characters.

    Checks: titles

  5. 5

    Improve Meta Descriptions

    Why: Essential for CTR in search results.

    How: Revise the 464 pages lacking proper meta descriptions to have unique, concise descriptions under 160 characters.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  6. 6

    Add Alt Text to Images

    Why: Essential for accessibility and SEO performance.

    How: Add descriptive alt attributes to the 10,302 images lacking them, ensuring they comply with best practices.

    Checks: images-alt

Generated automatically; verify each change against your own site before relying on it.

Security review

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

The site has several security issues that require attention. Key concerns include the lack of HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) and X-Frame-Options headers, which can expose users to interception and clickjacking attacks. Additionally, the absence of X-Content-Type-Options allows potential MIME type confusion, and mixed content issues could compromise secure connections.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, visitors can be intercepted if they access the site without HTTPS.

    Fix: Add the header: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains.

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Lack of Clickjacking ProtectionMedium

    Why it matters: Without X-Frame-Options, pages can be embedded in frames, risking clickjacking.

    Fix: Add the header: X-Frame-Options: DENY.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    Missing MIME Sniffing ProtectionLow

    Why it matters: Absence of X-Content-Type-Options can lead to dangerous MIME type execution.

    Fix: Add the header: X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff.

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  4. 4

    Mixed Content DetectedLow

    Why it matters: HTTP resources on HTTPS pages can be intercepted, compromising security.

    Fix: Ensure all resources are loaded over HTTPS, converting to https:// URLs.

    Evidence: Mixed content

  5. 5

    Use of Third-party Scripts Without Integrity ChecksLow

    Why it matters: Compromised third-party scripts can alter site content without protection.

    Fix: Implement Subresource Integrity (SRI) or a Content-Security-Policy that controls these scripts.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

What the checks found

  • FoundHTTP Strict Transport SecurityMedium

    151 of 910 HTML pages send strict-transport-security. Without it a visitor who types the address without https:// can be intercepted on the first request.

    • https://www.bing.com/copilotsearch?q=&FORM=CSSCOP → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?q=&FORM=HDRSC6 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/images?FORM=HDRSC2 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC2 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/rebates/history?filters=blackjack&FORM=MG0AUG&ocid=MG0AUG&toWww=1&redig=919DDAA43F204778A8564EF12C… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/rebates/faq?filters=blackjack&FORM=MG0AUG&ocid=MG0AUG&toWww=1&redig=1B8CF5CE33784A208DCEFBD7959361… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/copilotsearch?q=Bing+AI&FORM=CSSCOP → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=73e83a24783e5c9006b66d259bfe7b9f811a5cac0ea0c21fd6fc2c2906fde216JmltdHM9MTc4OTE3MTIwMA&p… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7375f693fc92c488f0e283cd8f1f8d29076f57c2270b901fad8af561a494b672JmltdHM9MTc4OTE3MTIwMA&p… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=9e31d2e132bf1c6a70892565704b217d71e29e65b27d1460e7e1311a51c80e3cJmltdHM9MTc4OTE3MTIwMA&p… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d711dcd698264c8bd2af0d0eca64bcb5985d9c8d52fbcc63e897da4492eb05f6JmltdHM9MTc4OTE3MTIwMA&p… → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundClickjacking protectionMedium

    31 of 910 HTML pages send 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://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback?setlang=fr&sid=1B4C7C76B2F56C9B205E6BA5B3776D59 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FORM=HDRSC1 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/copilotsearch?q=&FORM=CSSCOP → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback?FORM=SHOPTB&entryPoint=msn → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/collections?collectionpage=true&FORM=SHOPTB&entryPoint=msn → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/images?FORM=HDRSC2 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC2 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/?FORM=SHOPTB → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals?FORM=SHOPTB&entryPoint=msn&ocid=SHOPTB → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/rebates/history?filters=blackjack&FORM=MG0AUG&ocid=MG0AUG&toWww=1&redig=919DDAA43F204778A8564EF12C… → 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://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=AF14CE327C514BF19CDB2E8AD033238F → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/?FORM=Z9FD1 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback?setlang=fr&sid=1B4C7C76B2F56C9B205E6BA5B3776D59 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FORM=HDRSC1 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/copilotsearch?q=&FORM=CSSCOP → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?q=&FORM=HDRSC6 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback?FORM=SHOPTB&entryPoint=msn → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/collections?collectionpage=true&FORM=SHOPTB&entryPoint=msn → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/images?FORM=HDRSC2 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC2 → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundMixed contentLow

    184 resources on HTTPS pages are loaded over plain HTTP.

    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FORM=HDRSC1 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/images?FORM=HDRSC2 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=IA+Bing&FORM=HDRSC1 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FORM=HDRSC1&setlang=fr&sid=31C9… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FPIG=4E5C3FE55B31482B97B42506AB… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FPIG=4E5C3FE55B31482B97B42506AB… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FPIG=4E5C3FE55B31482B97B42506AB… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&FORM=000017&qpvt=Bing+AI loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&filters=ex1%3a%22ez1%22&FORM=00… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&filters=ex1%3a%22ez2%22&FORM=00… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&filters=ex1%3a%22ez3%22&FORM=00… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bing+AI&filters=ex1%3a%22ez5_20344_2070… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 1 other domain 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.)

    • r.bing.com (16 script tags)
7 checks passed, 4 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 910 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKContent Security Policy

    A Content-Security-Policy is set on 668 of 910 pages.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

    No Server or X-Powered-By header is sent.

  • OKForms over HTTPS

    16 forms found, all on HTTPS pages posting to HTTPS addresses.

  • 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.

  • OKSensitive paths in robots.txt

    robots.txt does not point at admin, backup or private paths.

  • 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.

  • Not applicableVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    No recognisable library versions were found in the sampled scripts.

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.

Sites scoring near bing.com

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 bing.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own bing.com?