Scanned sites / lifetouch.ca / 2026-09-14-0642

lifetouch.ca scan from 2026-09-14 06:42:21 UTC DR 46

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

Scan 2026-09-14-0642

Scanned 2026-09-14 06:42:21 UTC, finished 2026-09-14 06:54:06 UTC. Found on page 4 of brave web search results

Site: https://lifetouch.ca/

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

58/ 100Needs work

On September 14, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 136 pages and 158 assets of lifetouch.ca, starting from https://lifetouch.ca/. It scored 58 out of 100, a result that needs work. 11 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by indexability (61), meta descriptions (60), title tags (36); 6 checks passed. Most of the points went to indexability (−10), meta descriptions (−7.9), title tags (−5.9). 10 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
136
Assets fetched
158
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
11 of 27
CoverageComplete crawl

294 of 294 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 157 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags36 issues
    36 of 60 pages have title issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
    −5.9 points
  • Meta descriptions60 issues
    60 of 60 pages have meta description issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
    −7.9 points
  • Headings12 issues
    12 of 60 pages have heading issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
    −1.2 points
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites28 issues
    28 destinations answered with an error, 85 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 157 destinations checked.
    −4 points
  • Redirects53 issues
    75 redirecting URLs, 5 of them chained.
    −3.5 points
  • Non-200 responses79 noted
    79 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 75 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.
  • Indexability61 issues
    61 of 61 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
    −10 points
  • Image alt text11 issues
    11 of 182 image references have no alt attribute. 129 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −0.4 points
  • Heavy assets3 issues
    3 assets larger than 500 KB among 158 fetched assets. 2 documents over that size are listed but not counted: downloads are not page weight.
    −1.8 points
  • Orphan pages4 issues
    4 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
    −0.3 points
  • Sitemap coverage59 issues
    4 sitemaps listing 57 URLs: 29 crawled pages missing, 26 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 4 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −5.8 points
  • Internal link counts1 noted
    Internal link counts for 61 pages; 1 worth a look.
  • Thin content12 issues
    12 of 60 pages have fewer than 200 words. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
    −1.6 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format76 noted
    76 of 136 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals8 noted
    8 of 61 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives60 noted
    60 pages carry a robots directive; 1 carries none.
  • Anchor text37 noted
    37 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure48 noted
    48 of 60 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length17 noted
    17 images over 100 KB; 0 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomalies1 noted
    1 URL 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 61 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 294 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 61 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 73 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 scan sits among all scanned sites

2640 sites, median 80%, average 78%

lifetouch.ca scores 58%, higher than 5% of the 2640 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0611210%: 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%: 1 site45%: 5 sites46%: 5 sites47%: 5 sites48%: 5 sites49%: 8 sites50%: 6 sites51%: 6 sites52%: 8 sites53%: 8 sites54%: 10 sites55%: 10 sites56%: 7 sites57%: 15 sites58%: 18 sites59%: 9 sites60%: 15 sites61%: 13 sites62%: 20 sites63%: 29 sites64%: 21 sites65%: 32 sites66%: 39 sites67%: 39 sites68%: 37 sites69%: 48 sites70%: 48 sites71%: 75 sites72%: 73 sites73%: 79 sites74%: 77 sites75%: 84 sites76%: 95 sites77%: 106 sites78%: 118 sites79%: 108 sites80%: 120 sites81%: 117 sites82%: 120 sites83%: 120 sites84%: 121 sites85%: 100 sites86%: 88 sites87%: 88 sites88%: 72 sites89%: 72 sites90%: 49 sites91%: 56 sites92%: 40 sites93%: 28 sites94%: 22 sites95%: 14 sites96%: 16 sites97%: 15 sites98%: 7 sites99%: 2 sites100%: 69 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.

The website has several critical issues, including broken redirects and title/meta description problems. Focus on fixing these to improve search visibility and user experience.

  1. 1

    Fix Redirects

    Why: 75 redirects, including 5 chained, can harm user experience and SEO.

    How: Identify and eliminate unnecessary redirects. Update URLs to point directly to final destination.

    Checks: redirects

  2. 2

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: 79 URLs do not return a 2xx response, potentially affecting crawlability.

    How: Review the non-200 status pages and correct or remove broken URLs.

    Checks: status-codes

  3. 3

    Update Title Tags

    Why: 34 pages have title issues which can diminish search ranking.

    How: Ensure all pages have unique, descriptive titles. Use relevant keywords.

    Checks: titles

  4. 4

    Improve Meta Descriptions

    Why: All 60 pages have missing or inadequate meta descriptions, impacting click-through rates.

    How: Write engaging meta descriptions for each page, under 155 characters, including keywords.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  5. 5

    Correct Headings Structure

    Why: 12 pages have heading issues that can confuse search engines and users.

    How: Ensure each page has a single H1 and appropriate subheadings (H2, H3).

    Checks: headings

  6. 6

    Address Thin Content

    Why: 12 pages contain fewer than 200 words, which can lead to lower rankings.

    How: Enhance thin content pages by adding valuable information and relevant keywords.

    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

The site lacks critical security headers that protect users from various threats, such as data interception and cross-site scripting. Outdated JavaScript libraries introduce vulnerabilities that may affect site functionality. Implementing recommended security measures will enhance user protection and site integrity.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, visitors may be susceptible to interception when accessing the site without HTTPS.

    Fix: Add the header: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing Content Security Policy (CSP) HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Lack of CSP allows potentially harmful scripts and resources to load without restrictions, increasing the risk of XSS attacks.

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

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  3. 3

    Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Without this header, the site is vulnerable to clickjacking attacks where malicious sites can embed its pages.

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

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  4. 4

    Outdated jQuery Version with VulnerabilitiesMedium

    Why it matters: jQuery 2.1.3 contains known vulnerabilities that could be exploited, depending on usage.

    Fix: Upgrade jQuery to version 3.5.0 or later to mitigate known vulnerabilities.

    Evidence: Vulnerable JavaScript libraries

  5. 5

    Missing X-Content-Type-Options HeaderLow

    Why it matters: The absence of this header allows browsers to interpret files as their content type instead of their declared type, leading to security risks.

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

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  6. 6

    Lack of Subresource Integrity for Third-Party ScriptsLow

    Why it matters: Scripts loaded from external sources without integrity checks could be compromised, leading to security issues.

    Fix: Consider adding SRI attributes to third-party scripts or implementing a Content-Security-Policy that restricts their loading.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

  7. 7

    Sensitive Paths Listed in robots.txtInfo

    Why it matters: The listed path /wp-admin/ could provide insight into the site’s structure to potential attackers.

    Fix: Consider implementing access controls to sensitive paths instead of relying on robots.txt for protection.

    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://lifetouch.ca/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/about-lifetouch/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/school-pictures/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/grad-portraits/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/yearbooks/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/special-events/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/lifetouch-memory-mission/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/services-and-programs-for-schools/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/sales-contact-us/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/category/news/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/privacy-/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://lifetouch.ca/terms-conditions/ → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 61 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://lifetouch.ca/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/about-lifetouch/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/school-pictures/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/grad-portraits/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/yearbooks/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/special-events/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/lifetouch-memory-mission/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/services-and-programs-for-schools/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/sales-contact-us/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/category/news/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/privacy-/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lifetouch.ca/terms-conditions/ → 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://lifetouch.ca/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/about-lifetouch/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/school-pictures/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/grad-portraits/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/yearbooks/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/special-events/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/lifetouch-memory-mission/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/services-and-programs-for-schools/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/sales-contact-us/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/category/news/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/privacy-/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/terms-conditions/ → 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://lifetouch.ca/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/about-lifetouch/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/school-pictures/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/grad-portraits/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/yearbooks/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/special-events/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/lifetouch-memory-mission/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/services-and-programs-for-schools/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/sales-contact-us/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/category/news/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/privacy-/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://lifetouch.ca/terms-conditions/ → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundVulnerable JavaScript librariesMedium

    1 library with published vulnerabilities: jQuery 2.1.3. Whether they are exploitable depends on how the site uses them, but each has a fixed release.

    • jQuery 2.1.3 in https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.3/jquery.min.js: 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
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 2 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.)

    • ajax.googleapis.com (80 script tags)
    • cdnjs.cloudflare.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/
5 checks passed, 4 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 61 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.

  • 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.

  • Not applicableForms over HTTPS

    No forms were found on the sampled pages.

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 lifetouch.ca

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

Own lifetouch.ca?