Scanned sites / example.com / 2026-09-12-1536-2

example.com scan from 2026-09-12 15:36:28 UTC DR 94

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

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

Scan 2026-09-12-1536-2

Scanned 2026-09-12 15:36:28 UTC, finished 2026-09-12 15:40:13 UTC

Site: https://example.com/?page-found-on=2&web-search-used=brave

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

58/ 100Needs work

On September 12, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 1 page and 2 assets of example.com, starting from https://example.com/?page-found-on=2&web-search-used=brave. It scored 58 out of 100, a result that needs work. 5 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by title tags (1), indexability (1), meta descriptions (1); 16 checks passed. Most of the points went to title tags (−10), indexability (−10), meta descriptions (−8). 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 and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
1
Assets fetched
2
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
5 of 27
CoverageComplete crawl

3 of 3 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 1 link destination on other sites was checked.

  • Title tags1 issue
    1 of 1 page have title issues.
    −10 points
  • Meta descriptions1 issue
    1 of 1 page have meta description issues.
    −8 points
  • HeadingsOK
    0 of 1 page have heading issues.
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites1 noted
    0 destinations answered with an error, 1 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 1 destination checked.
  • RedirectsOK
    0 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses2 noted
    2 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 0 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.
  • Indexability1 issue
    1 of 1 indexable page have indexability warnings.
    −10 points
  • Image alt textOK
    0 of 0 image references have no alt attribute.
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 2 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pagesOK
    0 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverage1 issue
    No sitemap found. Tried: https://example.com/sitemap.xml (404). Add one at /sitemap.xml or list it in robots.txt.
    −6 points
  • Internal link counts1 noted
    Internal link counts for 1 page; 1 worth a look.
  • Thin content1 issue
    1 of 1 page have fewer than 200 words.
    −8 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format1 noted
    1 of 1 page URL are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals1 noted
    1 of 1 page have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directivesOK
    No page carries a robots directive; all 1 page are open to search engines.
  • Anchor textOK
    Every internal link has descriptive, followed anchor text.
  • Title and heading structure1 noted
    1 of 1 page 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 1 page 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; 4 response headers recorded across 3 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 1 page; 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 InsightsOK
    Mobile performance 100 on average across 1 page; 0 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

2873 sites, median 80%, average 79%

example.com scores 58%, higher than 4% of the 2873 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0751500%: 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%: 0 sites34%: 0 sites35%: 2 sites36%: 1 site37%: 1 site38%: 3 sites39%: 2 sites40%: 3 sites41%: 1 site42%: 2 sites43%: 3 sites44%: 2 sites45%: 6 sites46%: 5 sites47%: 5 sites48%: 6 sites49%: 8 sites50%: 6 sites51%: 7 sites52%: 8 sites53%: 9 sites54%: 9 sites55%: 9 sites56%: 8 sites57%: 17 sites58%: 18 sites59%: 10 sites60%: 15 sites61%: 13 sites62%: 20 sites63%: 29 sites64%: 22 sites65%: 33 sites66%: 43 sites67%: 43 sites68%: 42 sites69%: 52 sites70%: 46 sites71%: 80 sites72%: 76 sites73%: 81 sites74%: 82 sites75%: 86 sites76%: 95 sites77%: 110 sites78%: 132 sites79%: 111 sites80%: 128 sites81%: 125 sites82%: 132 sites83%: 119 sites84%: 131 sites85%: 105 sites86%: 95 sites87%: 96 sites88%: 80 sites89%: 75 sites90%: 55 sites91%: 59 sites92%: 43 sites93%: 29 sites94%: 25 sites95%: 15 sites96%: 18 sites97%: 16 sites98%: 8 sites99%: 3 sites100%: 150 sites58% 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.

Fix critical issues to improve the site's health score and SEO. Prioritize sitemap creation, title and meta description improvements, and address indexability concerns.

  1. 1

    Create a Sitemap

    Why: A sitemap helps search engines index your site effectively.

    How: Create a sitemap.xml file listing all your pages and upload it to the root of your site.

    Checks: sitemap-coverage

  2. 2

    Fix Non-200 Responses

    Why: Ensure all important URLs return a 200 status to improve accessibility.

    How: Check server settings to resolve the 404 errors for robots.txt and sitemap.xml.

    Checks: status-codes

  3. 3

    Improve Title Tag

    Why: A proper title tag improves relevance in search results.

    How: Change the title to a more descriptive one of at least 30 characters.

    Checks: titles

  4. 4

    Add Meta Description

    Why: Having a meta description encourages clicks from search results.

    How: Create a compelling meta description of 150-160 characters for the page.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  5. 5

    Add Canonical Tag

    Why: A canonical tag helps prevent duplicate content issues.

    How: Add a canonical link in the HTML head to point to the main version of the page.

    Checks: indexability

  6. 6

    Expand Content

    Why: More content can improve user engagement and SEO rankings.

    How: Add relevant text to increase the word count beyond 200 words.

    Checks: thin-content

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

Your website has several important security headers missing, which could expose it to vulnerabilities like interception, clickjacking, and MIME sniffing. Addressing these issues will enhance your site's security posture significantly.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, a visitor using HTTP might be intercepted on their first request.

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

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium

    Why it matters: Absence of CSP allows loading styles and scripts from any source, increasing XSS risk.

    Fix: Add the header: Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  3. 3

    Missing X-Frame-OptionsMedium

    Why it matters: Without this header, your pages can be embedded in frames, leading to clickjacking vulnerabilities.

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

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  4. 4

    Missing X-Content-Type-OptionsLow

    Why it matters: Without this header, browsers may mistakenly execute files as scripts based on their content.

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

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

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://example.com/?page-found-on=2&web-search-used=brave → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 1 HTML page 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://example.com/?page-found-on=2&web-search-used=brave → 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://example.com/?page-found-on=2&web-search-used=brave → 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://example.com/?page-found-on=2&web-search-used=brave → no x-content-type-options
6 checks passed, 6 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 1 crawled page 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.

  • 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.

  • OKThird-party scripts

    The sampled pages load no scripts from other domains.

  • 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 applicableForms over HTTPS

    No forms were found on the sampled pages.

  • Not applicableVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    No recognisable library versions were found in the sampled scripts.

  • Not applicableSensitive paths in robots.txt

    No robots.txt was fetched.

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

Own example.com?