Scanned sites / gardencityflorascaping.com

SEO report for gardencityflorascaping.com DR 3

The latest Site Spider scan of gardencityflorascaping.com, with 1 scan on record. Each scan is at its own address, for example /domain/gardencityflorascaping-com/2026-09-12-0206.

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

Latest scan

Scanned 2026-09-12 02:06:44 UTC, finished 2026-09-12 04:46:33 UTC

Site: https://gardencityflorascaping.com/

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

77/ 100Good

On September 12, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 33 pages and 594 assets of gardencityflorascaping.com, starting from https://gardencityflorascaping.com/. It scored 77 out of 100, a good result. 12 of 26 checks found something to fix, led by meta descriptions (22), heavy assets (79), title tags (7); 9 checks passed. Most of the points went to meta descriptions (−7.3), heavy assets (−6), title tags (−2.9). 5 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 11 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: Medium4 medium and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
33
Assets fetched
594
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
12 of 26
CoverageComplete crawl

627 of 627 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 26 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags7 issues
    7 of 24 pages have title issues.
    −2.9 points
  • Meta descriptions22 issues
    22 of 24 pages have meta description issues.
    −7.3 points
  • Headings6 issues
    6 of 24 pages have heading issues.
    −1.5 points
  • Broken links1 issue
    1 internal link point at 1 broken URL.
    −0.8 points
  • Links to other sites2 issues
    2 destinations answered with an error, 10 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 23 destinations checked.
    −0.8 points
  • Redirects8 issues
    8 redirecting URLs, 1 of them chained.
    −1.3 points
  • Non-200 responses1 issue
    9 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 9 of them are pages, 1 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
    −0.4 points
  • Rate limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • IndexabilityOK
    0 of 24 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
  • Image alt text6 issues
    6 of 198 image references have no alt attribute. 78 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −0.2 points
  • Heavy assets79 issues
    79 assets larger than 500 KB among 594 fetched assets.
    −6 points
  • Orphan pages3 issues
    3 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
    −0.5 points
  • Sitemap coverage4 issues
    5 sitemaps listing 23 URLs: 1 crawled page missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 3 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −1 points
  • Internal link counts1 noted
    Internal link counts for 24 pages; 1 worth a look.
  • Thin content1 issue
    1 of 24 pages have fewer than 200 words.
    −0.3 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL formatOK
    All 33 page URLs are plain lowercase addresses without parameters.
  • CanonicalsOK
    0 of 24 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives24 noted
    24 pages carry a robots directive; 0 carry none.
  • Anchor text11 noted
    11 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structureOK
    0 of 24 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better.
  • Image weight and alt length48 noted
    48 images over 100 KB; 0 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomalies5 noted
    5 URLs answered in a way worth looking at.
  • 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 24 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; 12 response headers recorded across 627 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 24 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 InsightsNot checked
    Not checked yet: PageSpeed Insights runs on the top pages once the crawl has finished.
  • 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

2338 sites, median 79%, average 78%

gardencityflorascaping.com scores 77%, higher than 38% of the 2338 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0581160%: 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%: 116 sites83%: 99 sites84%: 107 sites85%: 86 sites86%: 71 sites87%: 73 sites88%: 59 sites89%: 64 sites90%: 36 sites91%: 47 sites92%: 38 sites93%: 24 sites94%: 16 sites95%: 12 sites96%: 12 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 4 sites99%: 2 sites100%: 69 sites77% 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.

Several issues need addressing to improve SEO performance, including broken links, redirects, and title/meta description problems. Prioritize fixing these issues for better user experience and search visibility.

  1. 1

    Fix Broken Links

    Why: Improve user experience and SEO by eliminating dead links.

    How: Update or remove the broken link from the 'CONTACT' page.

    Checks: broken-links

  2. 2

    Address Redirects

    Why: Reduce unnecessary hops and improve load times.

    How: Eliminate any unnecessary redirects and streamline URLs.

    Checks: redirects

  3. 3

    Resolve Non-200 Response Codes

    Why: Ensure all pages return a successful status for users and search engines.

    How: Review and fix the pages returning non-200 responses.

    Checks: status-codes

  4. 4

    Optimize Title Tags

    Why: Prevent potential ranking issues from overly long titles.

    How: Shorten the title tags of affected pages to under 60 characters.

    Checks: titles

  5. 5

    Enhance Meta Descriptions

    Why: Boost CTR by providing clear and engaging summaries.

    How: Add compelling meta descriptions to pages lacking them.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  6. 6

    Add Missing Headings

    Why: Improve content structure and SEO relevance.

    How: Ensure each page has a main H1 heading for 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 significant security issues, including missing headers for secure communications and protection against certain web vulnerabilities. Immediate attention to these areas is essential to protect user data and website integrity.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, users typing the URL without https:// can be intercepted.

    Fix: Implement HSTS by adding 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: No CSP allows for unrestricted loading of resources, increasing the risk of XSS attacks.

    Fix: Add a Content-Security-Policy header, e.g.: Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self';

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  3. 3

    Missing X-Frame-OptionsMedium

    Why it matters: Lack of this header allows potential clickjacking attacks through frame embedding.

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

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  4. 4

    Vulnerable jQuery LibraryMedium

    Why it matters: The site uses jQuery version 3.1.1, which has known vulnerabilities that might be exploitable.

    Fix: Upgrade jQuery to at least 3.5.0.

    Evidence: Vulnerable JavaScript libraries

  5. 5

    Missing X-Content-Type-OptionsLow

    Why it matters: Missing this header allows browsers to execute files based on content type which could lead to security issues.

    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://gardencityflorascaping.com/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/about/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/portfolio/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/what-we-do/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/contact/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/blog/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/smart-irrigation/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/favorite-landscaping-project-2016/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/building-a-paver-driveway/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/sprinklers-and-the-efficient-use-of-water/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/whats-the-deal-with-my-retaining-wall/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/patio-design-why-it-matters-for-your-landscape/ → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 24 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://gardencityflorascaping.com/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/about/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/portfolio/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/what-we-do/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/contact/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/blog/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/smart-irrigation/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/favorite-landscaping-project-2016/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/building-a-paver-driveway/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/sprinklers-and-the-efficient-use-of-water/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/whats-the-deal-with-my-retaining-wall/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/patio-design-why-it-matters-for-your-landscape/ → 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://gardencityflorascaping.com/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/about/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/portfolio/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/what-we-do/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/contact/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/blog/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/smart-irrigation/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/favorite-landscaping-project-2016/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/building-a-paver-driveway/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/sprinklers-and-the-efficient-use-of-water/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/whats-the-deal-with-my-retaining-wall/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/patio-design-why-it-matters-for-your-landscape/ → 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://gardencityflorascaping.com/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/about/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/portfolio/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/what-we-do/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/contact/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/blog/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/smart-irrigation/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/favorite-landscaping-project-2016/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/building-a-paver-driveway/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/sprinklers-and-the-efficient-use-of-water/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/whats-the-deal-with-my-retaining-wall/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://gardencityflorascaping.com/patio-design-why-it-matters-for-your-landscape/ → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundVulnerable JavaScript librariesMedium

    1 library with published vulnerabilities: jQuery 3.1.1. Whether they are exploitable depends on how the site uses them, but each has a fixed release.

    • jQuery 3.1.1 in https://gardencityflorascaping.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/js/placehold…: CVE-2019-11358 (prototype pollution), CVE-2020-11022, CVE-2020-11023 (XSS via HTML passed to DOM methods); fixed in 3.5.0
  • 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 (48 script tags)
    • cdn.trustindex.io (1 script tag)
    • 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/
6 checks passed, 3 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 24 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.

  • 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 gardencityflorascaping.com

No other scans of this site yet.

Sites scoring near gardencityflorascaping.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 gardencityflorascaping.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own gardencityflorascaping.com?

  • Claim this site to manage the listing, hide it from the public lists, or keep it.
  • Want it gone instead? Ask through the support form or e-mail support@diyseohub.com, naming gardencityflorascaping.com. Removal needs no account and no proof of purchase.