Scanned sites / get-recall.app

SEO report for get-recall.app DR 0

The latest Site Spider scan of get-recall.app, with 1 scan on record. Each scan is at its own address, for example /domain/get--recall-app/2026-09-10-1853.

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

Latest scan

Scanned 2026-09-10 18:53:32 UTC, finished 2026-09-10 18:57:31 UTC

Site: https://get-recall.app/

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

72/ 100Needs work

On September 10, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 2 pages and 30 assets of get-recall.app, starting from https://get-recall.app/. It scored 72 out of 100, a result that needs work. 4 of 26 checks found something to fix, led by indexability (1), thin content (1), sitemap coverage (1); 16 checks passed. Most of the points went to indexability (−10), thin content (−8), sitemap coverage (−6). 6 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: Medium2 medium and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
2
Assets fetched
30
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
4 of 26
CoverageComplete crawl

32 of 32 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript.

  • Title tagsOK
    0 of 1 page have title issues.
  • Meta descriptionsOK
    0 of 1 page have meta description issues.
  • HeadingsOK
    0 of 1 page have heading issues.
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sitesNot checked
    Not checked: the crawl fetched nothing this check can look at.
  • Redirects3 noted
    3 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses6 noted
    6 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 1 of them is a page, 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 7 image references have no alt attribute.
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 30 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pages1 issue
    1 page have no internal links pointing at them.
    −4 points
  • Sitemap coverage1 issue
    No sitemap found. Tried: https://get-recall.app/sitemap.xml (307), https://www.get-recall.app/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 formatOK
    All 2 page URLs are plain lowercase addresses without parameters.
  • 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 structureOK
    0 of 1 page could use the title, heading and snippet space better.
  • Image weight and alt length2 noted
    2 images over 100 KB; 0 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 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; 10 response headers recorded across 32 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 Insights1 noted
    Mobile performance 98 on average across 2 pages; 1 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

2325 sites, median 79%, average 78%

get-recall.app scores 72%, higher than 23% of the 2325 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0571140%: 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%: 69 sites72%: 71 sites73%: 69 sites74%: 68 sites75%: 72 sites76%: 87 sites77%: 92 sites78%: 106 sites79%: 86 sites80%: 106 sites81%: 105 sites82%: 114 sites83%: 99 sites84%: 106 sites85%: 85 sites86%: 70 sites87%: 76 sites88%: 58 sites89%: 63 sites90%: 34 sites91%: 47 sites92%: 38 sites93%: 22 sites94%: 16 sites95%: 11 sites96%: 10 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 4 sites99%: 1 site100%: 70 sites72% 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.

Your site needs several fixes to improve its health score, including handling redirects, resolving non-200 responses, creating a sitemap, and boosting content quality. Prioritize these for better SEO performance.

  1. 1

    Fix Redirects

    Why: Reduce unnecessary redirects for improved user experience and site speed.

    How: Update links to point directly to the final destination (e.g., use https://www.get-recall.app/).

    Checks: redirects

  2. 2

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: Ensure all pages return a 2xx response to enhance accessibility.

    How: Check server settings, fix URLs, and ensure that assets like robots.txt and sitemap.xml exist.

    Checks: status-codes

  3. 3

    Create Sitemap

    Why: A sitemap helps search engines crawl your site more effectively.

    How: Generate a sitemap.xml file and host it at https://get-recall.app/sitemap.xml.

    Checks: sitemap-coverage

  4. 4

    Add Canonical Tags

    Why: Prevent duplicate content issues by specifying the preferred version of a page.

    How: Add a <link rel='canonical' href='https://www.get-recall.app/' /> tag in the head of your indexable page.

    Checks: indexability

  5. 5

    Enhance Content Quality

    Why: Increase word count to improve page relevance and SEO ranking.

    How: Expand your content on https://www.get-recall.app/ to over 200 words.

    Checks: thin-content

  6. 6

    Link to Orphan Page

    Why: Increase discoverability by linking to the orphan page from other pages.

    How: Add an internal link to https://www.get-recall.app/ from related pages.

    Checks: orphan-pages

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 security vulnerabilities related to content loading and embedding. Specifically, it's missing critical response headers that could allow for clickjacking attacks and other security risks. Address these issues to enhance your site's protection.

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

    Missing Content Security PolicyMedium

    Why it matters: Without a CSP, the site can load scripts and resources from any location, increasing the risk of XSS attacks.

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

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  2. 2

    Absence of Clickjacking ProtectionMedium

    Why it matters: Without X-Frame-Options, attackers can embed your content in their pages, leading to clickjacking vulnerabilities.

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

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    No MIME Sniffing ProtectionLow

    Why it matters: The absence of X-Content-Type-Options allows browsers to interpret files incorrectly, posing security risks.

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

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

What the checks found

  • 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://www.get-recall.app/ → 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://www.get-recall.app/ → 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.get-recall.app/ → no x-content-type-options
8 checks passed, 5 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 1 crawled page were served over HTTPS.

  • OKHTTP Strict Transport Security

    strict-transport-security is set on all 1 HTML page.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

Earlier scans of get-recall.app

No other scans of this site yet.

Sites scoring near get-recall.app

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 get-recall.app from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own get-recall.app?