Scanned sites / lilygarland.com / 2026-09-12-2252

lilygarland.com scan from 2026-09-12 22:52:05 UTC DR 12

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

Scan 2026-09-12-2252

Scanned 2026-09-12 22:52:05 UTC, finished 2026-09-12 23:53:00 UTC. Found on page 3 of brave web search results

Site: https://lilygarland.com/

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

76/ 100Good

On September 12, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 64 pages and 2600 assets of lilygarland.com, starting from https://lilygarland.com/. It scored 76 out of 100, a good result. 11 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by heavy assets (557), meta descriptions (46), sitemap coverage (52); 7 checks passed. Most of the points went to meta descriptions (−6), heavy assets (−6), sitemap coverage (−5.1). 9 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: Medium1 medium, 1 low and 1 info findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
64
Assets fetched
2600
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
11 of 27
CoverageJob finished, partial coverage

2,664 of 2,666 discovered URLs were fetched, 639 left out by the 5,000-page and 1,000-asset budget. The job finished, but the crawl did not reach everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 47 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags20 issues
    20 of 52 pages have title issues. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −3.3 points
  • Meta descriptions46 issues
    46 of 52 pages have meta description issues. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −6 points
  • Headings2 issues
    2 of 52 pages have heading issues. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −0.2 points
  • Broken links2 issues
    2 internal links point at 2 broken URLs.
    −0.7 points
  • Links to other sites190 noted
    0 destinations answered with an error, 42 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 46 destinations checked.
  • Redirects1 issue
    2 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
    −0.1 points
  • Non-200 responses2 issues
    6 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 3 of them are pages, 2 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
    −0.3 points
  • Rate limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • Indexability9 issues
    9 of 61 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
    −1.5 points
  • Image alt textOK
    0 of 2204 image references have no alt attribute. 1853 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
  • Heavy assets557 issues
    557 assets larger than 500 KB among 2600 fetched assets.
    −6 points
  • Orphan pages1 issue
    1 page have no internal links pointing at them.
    −0.1 points
  • Sitemap coverage52 issues
    1 sitemap listing 0 URLs: 52 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −5.1 points
  • Internal link counts2 noted
    Internal link counts for 61 pages; 2 worth a look.
  • Thin content8 issues
    8 of 52 pages have fewer than 200 words. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format9 noted
    9 of 64 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals9 noted
    9 of 61 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives61 noted
    61 pages carry a robots directive; 0 carry none.
  • Anchor text53 noted
    53 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure2 noted
    2 of 52 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length1,065 noted
    1065 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 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; 15 response headers recorded across 2664 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 58 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

2860 sites, median 80%, average 79%

lilygarland.com scores 76%, higher than 32% of the 2860 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0751490%: 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%: 21 sites65%: 33 sites66%: 43 sites67%: 42 sites68%: 42 sites69%: 52 sites70%: 46 sites71%: 79 sites72%: 76 sites73%: 81 sites74%: 82 sites75%: 87 sites76%: 95 sites77%: 108 sites78%: 131 sites79%: 110 sites80%: 127 sites81%: 124 sites82%: 132 sites83%: 120 sites84%: 130 sites85%: 107 sites86%: 95 sites87%: 94 sites88%: 81 sites89%: 76 sites90%: 54 sites91%: 58 sites92%: 43 sites93%: 28 sites94%: 25 sites95%: 14 sites96%: 17 sites97%: 16 sites98%: 7 sites99%: 3 sites100%: 149 sites76% 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 issues that need fixing, particularly with broken links, redirect management, and missing essential tags. Addressing these will enhance user experience and SEO performance.

  1. 1

    Fix Broken Links

    Why: Broken links affect user experience and SEO.

    How: Update or remove the two broken internal links identified.

    Checks: broken-links

  2. 2

    Manage Redirects

    Why: Improper redirect usage can confuse search engines.

    How: Ensure the two redirecting URLs point to the correct final destinations.

    Checks: redirects

  3. 3

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: Pages not returning a 2xx status can harm search visibility.

    How: Identify and correct the six URLs that are not returning successful status codes.

    Checks: status-codes

  4. 4

    Improve Title Tags

    Why: Well-optimized titles boost click-through rates.

    How: Shorten titles exceeding 60 characters for 20 pages.

    Checks: titles

  5. 5

    Enhance Meta Descriptions

    Why: Meta descriptions impact search engine results appearance.

    How: Create unique meta descriptions for 46 pages which currently have issues.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  6. 6

    Add Missing Headings

    Why: Headings structure assists both users and search engines.

    How: Add H1 tags to the two pages that are missing them.

    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 site lilygarland.com lacks critical security features such as a Content Security Policy to prevent unauthorized script execution. There is also a potential information exposure risk through the robots.txt file. Additionally, third-party scripts are used without integrity checks, increasing the risk of compromise.

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

    Missing Content Security PolicyMedium

    Why it matters: The absence of a Content Security Policy increases the risk of cross-site scripting and other injection attacks.

    Fix: Implement a Content-Security-Policy header with appropriate sources, e.g., "Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self';".

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  2. 2

    Third-Party Scripts Without Integrity ChecksLow

    Why it matters: Using scripts from other domains without Subresource Integrity (SRI) can allow attackers to inject malicious content.

    Fix: Consider using Subresource Integrity for scripts or implementing a Content Security Policy that restricts trusted script sources.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

  3. 3

    Sensitive Path in robots.txtInfo

    Why it matters: The robots.txt file discloses a potentially sensitive path that could aid attackers in probing the site.

    Fix: Consider restricting access to /wp-admin/ with proper access controls instead of solely relying on robots.txt.

    Evidence: Sensitive paths in robots.txt

What the checks found

  • 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://lilygarland.com/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/events-and-occasions/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/events-and-occasions/weddings/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/events-and-occasions/private-parties/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/events-and-occasions/business-events/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/events-and-occasions/funerals/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/gallery/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/rental-items/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/about-us/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/contact-us/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/jobs/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://lilygarland.com/gallery/cider-mountain-wedding-flowers/ → no content-security-policy
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 1 other domain 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.)

    • 695759.17hats.com (9 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/
10 checks passed, 3 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 61 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKHTTP Strict Transport Security

    strict-transport-security is set on all 61 HTML pages.

  • OKClickjacking protection

    x-frame-options is set on all 61 HTML pages.

  • OKMIME sniffing protection

    x-content-type-options is set on all 61 HTML pages.

  • 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

    39 forms found, all on HTTPS pages posting to HTTPS addresses.

  • OKVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    2 library versions recognised, none with known vulnerabilities.

  • 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.

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

Own lilygarland.com?