Scanned sites / idahofamilylaw.com

SEO report for idahofamilylaw.com DR 12

The latest Site Spider scan of idahofamilylaw.com, with 1 scan on record. Each scan is at its own address, for example /domain/idahofamilylaw-com/2026-09-14-2047.

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

Latest scan

Scanned 2026-09-14 20:47:43 UTC, finished 2026-09-14 20:54:33 UTC. Found with openstreetmap overpass

Site: https://idahofamilylaw.com/

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

82/ 100Good

On September 14, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 13 pages and 106 assets of idahofamilylaw.com, starting from https://idahofamilylaw.com/. It scored 82 out of 100, a good result. 5 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by title tags (11), headings (13), meta descriptions (3); 16 checks passed. Most of the points went to title tags (−8.5), headings (−6), meta descriptions (−1.8). 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: Medium4 medium, 2 low and 1 info findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
13
Assets fetched
106
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
5 of 27
CoverageComplete crawl

119 of 119 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 10 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags11 issues
    11 of 13 pages have title issues.
    −8.5 points
  • Meta descriptions3 issues
    3 of 13 pages have meta description issues.
    −1.8 points
  • Headings13 issues
    13 of 13 pages have heading issues.
    −6 points
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites1 issue
    1 destination answered with an error, 3 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 9 destinations checked.
    −0.4 points
  • Redirects1 noted
    1 redirecting URL, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses6 noted
    6 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.
  • IndexabilityOK
    0 of 13 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
  • Image alt textOK
    0 of 54 image references have no alt attribute.
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 106 fetched assets. 1 document over that size is listed but not counted: downloads are not page weight.
  • Orphan pagesOK
    0 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverageOK
    2 sitemaps listing 13 URLs: 0 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
  • Internal link countsOK
    Internal link counts for 13 pages; none is a dead end or buried.
  • Thin content2 issues
    2 of 13 pages have fewer than 200 words.
    −1.2 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL formatOK
    All 13 page URLs are plain lowercase addresses without parameters.
  • CanonicalsOK
    0 of 13 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives13 noted
    13 pages carry a robots directive; 0 carry none.
  • Anchor text1 noted
    1 destination are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structureOK
    0 of 13 pages 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 13 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; 11 response headers recorded across 119 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 13 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 Insights5 noted
    Mobile performance 55 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 site sits among all scanned sites

2873 sites, median 80%, average 79%

idahofamilylaw.com scores 82%, higher than 56% 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%: 87 sites76%: 95 sites77%: 109 sites78%: 132 sites79%: 111 sites80%: 128 sites81%: 125 sites82%: 132 sites83%: 119 sites84%: 130 sites85%: 106 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 sites82% 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 website has several areas that need attention, including title tags, meta descriptions, and headings. Addressing these will improve SEO significantly. Focus on the items listed below for the best results.

  1. 1

    Fix Title Tag Issues

    Why: 11 out of 13 pages have long or duplicate title tags, affecting SEO.

    How: Revise title tags to be under 60 characters and unique for each page.

    Checks: titles

  2. 2

    Correct Meta Description Problems

    Why: 3 pages have duplicate meta descriptions, which can confuse search engines.

    How: Create unique meta descriptions under 155 characters for each affected page.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  3. 3

    Add Missing H1 Tags

    Why: All pages are missing H1 tags, which are crucial for SEO.

    How: Add a clear H1 tag to each page that accurately describes the content.

    Checks: headings

  4. 4

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: 6 URLs do not return a 2xx response, which can lead to poor user experience.

    How: Fix or remove the URLs that return non-200 status codes.

    Checks: status-codes

  5. 5

    Remove or Optimize Heavy Assets

    Why: 1 asset is larger than 500 KB, which can slow down loading times.

    How: Compress or replace heavy assets with lighter alternatives.

    Checks: heavy-assets

  6. 6

    Enhance Thin Content Pages

    Why: 2 pages have fewer than 200 words, which may impact rankings.

    How: Expand content on these pages to provide more value to visitors.

    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 security weaknesses that need attention. Key issues include missing security headers that can protect against attacks, outdated libraries with known vulnerabilities, and the absence of a Content Security Policy to restrict script loading. Addressing these will help enhance your site's security significantly.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, visitors may be exposed to man-in-the-middle attacks 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

    Missing Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium

    Why it matters: Without CSP, your site is vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, as scripts can load from any source.

    Fix: Add a CSP header to restrict sources: Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  3. 3

    Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Lack of X-Frame-Options makes your site susceptible to clickjacking attacks.

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

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  4. 4

    Vulnerable JavaScript LibrariesMedium

    Why it matters: Your site uses outdated versions of jQuery and Bootstrap, which have known security vulnerabilities.

    Fix: Upgrade jQuery to at least version 3.5.0 and Bootstrap to version 3.4.1.

    Evidence: Vulnerable JavaScript libraries

  5. 5

    Missing X-Content-Type-Options HeaderLow

    Why it matters: Not having this header may allow browsers to interpret files as scripts, potentially leading to XSS.

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

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  6. 6

    Unsanctioned Third-Party ScriptsLow

    Why it matters: Running scripts from other domains without Subresource Integrity can expose your site if those sites are compromised.

    Fix: Implement a Content-Security-Policy to restrict script sources or use Subresource Integrity.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

  7. 7

    Sensitive paths in robots.txtInfo

    Why it matters: The public robots.txt file reveals a sensitive path, which could aid attackers.

    Fix: Implement real access controls rather than relying on robots.txt to protect private paths.

    Evidence: Sensitive paths in robots.txt

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://idahofamilylaw.com/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/attorney/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/legal/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/experiences/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/adoption/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/assisted/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/litigation/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/mediation/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/faqs/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/contact/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/articles/ → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 13 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://idahofamilylaw.com/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/attorney/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/legal/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/experiences/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/adoption/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/assisted/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/litigation/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/mediation/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/faqs/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/contact/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/articles/ → 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://idahofamilylaw.com/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/attorney/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/legal/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/experiences/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/adoption/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/assisted/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/litigation/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/mediation/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/faqs/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/contact/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/articles/ → 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://idahofamilylaw.com/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/attorney/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/legal/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/experiences/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/adoption/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/assisted/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/litigation/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/practice-areas/mediation/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/faqs/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/contact/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://idahofamilylaw.com/articles/ → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundVulnerable JavaScript librariesMedium

    3 libraries with published vulnerabilities: jQuery 1.9.1, jQuery 3.1.1, Bootstrap 3.3.1. Whether they are exploitable depends on how the site uses them, but each has a fixed release.

    • jQuery 1.9.1 in https://idahofamilylaw.com/wp-content/themes/lawfirmsites/library/js/jquery-1.9…: CVE-2015-9251 (XSS via cross-domain AJAX), CVE-2019-11358 (prototype pollution), CVE-2020-11022, CVE-2020-11023 (XSS via HTML passed to DOM methods); fixed in 3.5.0
    • jQuery 3.1.1 in https://idahofamilylaw.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/js/placeholders.jque…: CVE-2019-11358 (prototype pollution), CVE-2020-11022, CVE-2020-11023 (XSS via HTML passed to DOM methods); fixed in 3.5.0
    • Bootstrap 3.3.1 in https://idahofamilylaw.com/wp-content/themes/lawfirmsites/bower_components/boot…: CVE-2016-10735, CVE-2018-14040, CVE-2018-14041, CVE-2018-14042, CVE-2019-8331 (XSS through data attributes in tooltip, popover, collapse and scrollspy); fixed in 3.4.1
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 5 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.)

    • css3-mediaqueries-js.googlecode.com (13 script tags)
    • html5shim.googlecode.com (13 script tags)
    • cdnjs.cloudflare.com (13 script tags)
    • ajax.googleapis.com (13 script tags)
    • www.google.com (13 script tags)
  • 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 13 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

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

  • OKMixed content

    No HTTPS page loads a script, stylesheet, font or image over plain HTTP.

  • OKForms over HTTPS

    13 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.

  • 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 idahofamilylaw.com

No other scans of this site yet.

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

Own idahofamilylaw.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 idahofamilylaw.com. Removal needs no account and no proof of purchase.