Scanned sites / bing.com / 2026-10-26-0606

bing.com scan from 2026-10-26 06:06:25 UTC DR 93

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

Scan 2026-10-26-0606

Scanned 2026-10-26 06:06:25 UTC, finished 2026-10-26 06:34:40 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 5133 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.

86/ 100GoodNot a full crawl

On October 26, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 726 pages and 22 assets of bing.com, starting from https://bing.com/. It scored 86 out of 100, a good result. 11 of 33 checks found something to fix, led by image alt text (9,969), indexability (128), title tags (125); 9 checks passed. Most of the points went to image alt text (−5.2), title tags (−1.8), indexability (−1.8). 13 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 4 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 and 3 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
726
Assets fetched
22
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
11 of 33
CoverageJob finished, partial coverage

748 of 6,000 discovered URLs were fetched, 119 blocked by robots.txt, 29,265 left out by the 5,000-page and 1,000-asset budget, 5,133 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, 2069 left unchecked.

  • Title tags125 issues
    125 of 128 pages have title issues. 566 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.8 points
  • Meta descriptions128 issues
    128 of 128 pages have meta description issues. 566 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.5 points
  • Headings128 issues
    128 of 128 pages have heading issues. 566 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.1 points
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites9 issues
    9 destinations answered with an error, 65 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), 2069 were left unchecked by the per-scan cap, of 300 destinations checked.
    −0.5 points
  • Redirects7 issues
    10 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses10 noted
    10 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 8 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
  • Indexability128 issues
    128 of 134 indexable pages have indexability warnings. 560 pages noindex by design.
    −1.8 points
  • Image alt text9,969 issues
    9969 of 11406 image references have no alt attribute. 310 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −5.2 points
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 22 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pages7 issues
    7 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverage128 issues
    1 sitemap listing 0 URLs: 128 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −1.1 points
  • Internal link counts454 noted
    Internal link counts for 500 pages; 454 worth a look.
  • Thin content96 issues
    96 of 128 pages have fewer than 200 words. 566 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.1 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format723 noted
    723 of 726 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals694 noted
    694 of 694 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives590 noted
    590 pages carry a robots directive; 104 carry none.
  • Anchor text55 noted
    55 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure32 noted
    32 of 128 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 566 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length17 noted
    0 images over 100 KB; 17 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomaliesOK
    No redirect loops, header redirects or pages served as something other than HTML.
  • HTML and head validation64 noted
    64 of 694 pages have HTML problems: 0 with head tags outside <head>, 0 over 2 MB.
  • hreflangOK
    No page declares hreflang.
  • Structured dataOK
    No page carries structured data (128 indexable pages checked).
  • Near duplicates14 noted
    14 pages in 5 groups read almost the same as another page (95% alike or more).
  • Soft 404sOK
    None of 694 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 positions64 noted
    64 of 124 linked pages are linked only from the template, never from another page's content.
  • PaginationOK
    No page declares rel=next or rel=prev pagination.
  • Headers and cookies12 noted
    13 cookies set by the site, 12 missing a protective flag; 14 response headers recorded across 748 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 694 pages; 666 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 InsightsNot checked
    Not checked yet: PageSpeed Insights runs on the top pages once the crawl has finished.
  • Spelling13 noted
    13 words an English dictionary does not know, on 21 pages. Product names and jargon will appear here too.

Where this scan sits among all scanned sites

2317 sites, median 79%, average 78%

bing.com scores 86%, higher than 77% of the 2317 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%: 35 sites69%: 46 sites70%: 44 sites71%: 68 sites72%: 70 sites73%: 69 sites74%: 68 sites75%: 72 sites76%: 86 sites77%: 92 sites78%: 106 sites79%: 86 sites80%: 105 sites81%: 104 sites82%: 115 sites83%: 99 sites84%: 108 sites85%: 85 sites86%: 69 sites87%: 75 sites88%: 58 sites89%: 61 sites90%: 34 sites91%: 46 sites92%: 38 sites93%: 22 sites94%: 16 sites95%: 11 sites96%: 9 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 4 sites99%: 1 site100%: 70 sites86% 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

The Bing site has several SEO issues related to redirects, status codes, rate limiting, titles, meta descriptions, and heading tags. Addressing these will enhance site accessibility and user experience.

  1. 1

    Fix Redirects

    Why: Redirects can confuse search engines and affect crawl efficiency.

    How: Update the URLs with direct links to avoid unnecessary redirects.

    Checks: redirects

  2. 2

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: Non-200 responses can lead to content being inaccessible to users and crawlers.

    How: Investigate the 10 URLs and ensure they return 2xx responses.

    Checks: status-codes

  3. 3

    Address Rate Limiting

    Why: Rate limiting can prevent search engines from crawling the site efficiently.

    How: Review server settings to allow sufficient crawl requests.

    Checks: rate-limited

  4. 4

    Add Missing Title Tags

    Why: Title tags are crucial for SEO and user engagement.

    How: Create unique title tags for the affected pages to enhance relevance.

    Checks: titles

  5. 5

    Improve Meta Descriptions

    Why: Meta descriptions influence click-through rates in search results.

    How: Write unique meta descriptions for pages sharing templates.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  6. 6

    Implement Heading Tags

    Why: Proper heading tags improve content structure for SEO.

    How: Add H1 tags to pages missing them to enhance clarity.

    Checks: headings

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 website has several security issues, including missing HTTP headers and insufficient cookie protections. Addressing these vulnerabilities can significantly enhance user security and safeguard against common attacks like clickjacking and session hijacking.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Lack of HSTS may allow man-in-the-middle attacks when users access the site without HTTPS.

    Fix: Implement HSTS by adding the header: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains.

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Absence of X-Frame-Options makes the site vulnerable to clickjacking attacks.

    Fix: Add the header: X-Frame-Options: DENY to prevent framing of the site.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    Insecure Cookie FlagsMedium

    Why it matters: Cookies without proper flags can be accessed by scripts, leading to session hijacking.

    Fix: For each vulnerable cookie, set HttpOnly, Secure, and SameSite attributes. For example: Set-Cookie: MUID=VALUE; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=Strict.

    Evidence: Cookie flags

  4. 4

    Missing X-Content-Type-Options HeaderLow

    Why it matters: Without this header, browsers may incorrectly guess the content type, leading to potential security risks.

    Fix: Include the header: X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in your HTTP responses.

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  5. 5

    Mixed Content IssuesLow

    Why it matters: Loading resources over HTTP on HTTPS pages can expose users to man-in-the-middle attacks.

    Fix: Ensure all resources are loaded via HTTPS by addressing URLs like http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png.

    Evidence: Mixed content

  6. 6

    Missing Subresource Integrity for Third-Party ScriptsLow

    Why it matters: Scripts run from other domains without SRI risk unauthorized code execution if these scripts are compromised.

    Fix: Implement SRI for all third-party scripts or set a Content Security Policy that restricts these hosts.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

What the checks found

  • FoundHTTP Strict Transport SecurityMedium

    6 of 694 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/videos?FORM=Z9LH1 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1&setlang=fr&sid=3B8877E5570B609F12A3601B56176198 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC4 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filterhint-shortvideo&q=most%20viewed%20shorts&FORM=SV… → 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/maps/?FORM=Z9LH2&setlang=fr&sid=18DEFE424DE86FB02F14E9BC4CD96E63 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3&setlang… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC4 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC6 → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundClickjacking protectionMedium

    32 of 694 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/videos?FORM=Z9LH1 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1&setlang=fr&sid=3B8877E5570B609F12A3601B56176198 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC4 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filterhint-shortvideo&q=most%20viewed%20shorts&FORM=SV… → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3&setlang… → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC4 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=NSBABR → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Canada&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_Canada%22%5d&FORM=NSBABR → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=World&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_World%22%5d&FORM=NSBABR → 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=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3 → 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/videos?FORM=Z9LH1&setlang=fr&sid=3B8877E5570B609F12A3601B56176198 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC4 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filterhint-shortvideo&q=most%20viewed%20shorts&FORM=SV… → 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/maps/?FORM=Z9LH2&setlang=fr&sid=18DEFE424DE86FB02F14E9BC4CD96E63 → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundCookie flagsMedium

    12 of 13 cookies are missing protective flags. Without HttpOnly a script can read the cookie; without Secure it travels over plain HTTP; without SameSite it is sent on cross-site requests.

    • MUID (set by https://bing.com/) lacks HttpOnly
    • MUIDB (set by https://bing.com/) lacks Secure, SameSite
    • _EDGE_S (set by https://bing.com/) lacks Secure, SameSite
    • _EDGE_V (set by https://bing.com/) lacks Secure, SameSite
    • SRCHD (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • SRCHUID (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • SRCHUSR (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • SRCHHPGUSR (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • _SS (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • ULC (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • _HPVN (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=F0A046E0624E4B789F02B77D9A25021A) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • MMCASM (set by https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
  • FoundMixed contentLow

    241 resources on HTTPS pages are loaded over plain HTTP.

    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filt… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC4 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=most+viewed+shorts&FORM=HDRSC4 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filt… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui%3afi… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+YouTube+Shorts&qft=+… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+View+Today&qft=+filterui%3a… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+Short+Films&qft=+fil… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+TV+Show&qft=+filteru… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Reacting+to+Most+Viewed+YouTube+… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+Today&qft=+filterui%… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jesser+YouTube&qft=+filterui%3af… 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 (38 script tags)
9 checks passed, 1 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 694 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKContent Security Policy

    A Content-Security-Policy is set.

  • OKReferrer policy

    A referrer policy is set through a <meta name="referrer"> tag.

  • OKPermissions policy

    permissions-policy is set on all 694 HTML pages.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

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

  • OKForms over HTTPS

    42 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 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?