Scanned sites / moz.com / 2026-09-13-0303

moz.com scan from 2026-09-13 03:03:34 UTC DR 91

A newer scan exists. See the latest report for moz.com.

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

Scan 2026-09-13-0303

Scanned 2026-09-13 03:03:34 UTC, finished 2026-09-13 15:37:30 UTC. Found with 42backlinks.com tool directory

Site: https://moz.com/

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

71/ 100Needs work

On September 13, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 4962 pages and 1073 assets of moz.com, starting from https://moz.com/. It scored 71 out of 100, a result that needs work. 13 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by heavy assets (117), meta descriptions (2,237), sitemap coverage (2,666); 4 checks passed. Most of the points went to heavy assets (−6), meta descriptions (−5), sitemap coverage (−4.5). 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: Medium3 medium, 2 low and 1 info findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
4962
Assets fetched
1073
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
13 of 27
CoverageJob finished, partial coverage

6,035 of 6,077 discovered URLs were fetched, 42 blocked by robots.txt, 72,090 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. 300 link destinations on other sites were checked, 15023 left unchecked.

  • Title tags1,352 issues
    1352 of 2666 pages have title issues. 882 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −3.8 points
  • Meta descriptions2,237 issues
    2237 of 2666 pages have meta description issues. 882 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −5 points
  • Headings1,161 issues
    1161 of 2666 pages have heading issues. 882 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −2 points
  • Broken links608 issues
    20855 internal links point at 608 broken URLs.
    −3.4 points
  • Links to other sites32 issues
    32 destinations answered with an error, 99 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), 15023 were left unchecked by the per-scan cap, of 300 destinations checked.
    −0.4 points
  • Redirects806 issues
    816 redirecting URLs, 6 of them chained.
    −0.9 points
  • Non-200 responses612 issues
    1448 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 1414 of them are pages, 612 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
    −1.7 points
  • Rate limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • Indexability212 issues
    212 of 2849 indexable pages have indexability warnings. 699 pages noindex by design.
    −0.6 points
  • Image alt text8,335 issues
    8335 of 55866 image references have no alt attribute. 2811 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −0.9 points
  • Heavy assets117 issues
    117 assets larger than 500 KB among 1073 fetched assets.
    −6 points
  • Orphan pages51 issues
    51 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
    −0.1 points
  • Sitemap coverage2,666 issues
    2 sitemaps listing 0 URLs: 2666 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −4.5 points
  • Internal link counts306 noted
    Internal link counts for 500 pages; 306 worth a look.
  • Thin content20 issues
    20 of 2666 pages have fewer than 200 words. 882 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format553 noted
    553 of 4962 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals557 noted
    557 of 3548 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives715 noted
    715 pages carry a robots directive; 2833 carry none.
  • Anchor text2,045 noted
    2045 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure1,976 noted
    1976 of 2666 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 882 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length1,023 noted
    190 images over 100 KB; 833 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomalies16 noted
    16 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 404s2 noted
    2 pages answer 200 but say they are not there.
  • 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; 16 response headers recorded across 6035 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 3548 pages; 3468 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 59 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

2342 sites, median 79%, average 78%

moz.com scores 71%, higher than 20% of the 2342 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%: 20 sites63%: 27 sites64%: 22 sites65%: 32 sites66%: 35 sites67%: 35 sites68%: 34 sites69%: 47 sites70%: 44 sites71%: 70 sites72%: 71 sites73%: 70 sites74%: 68 sites75%: 72 sites76%: 87 sites77%: 92 sites78%: 107 sites79%: 85 sites80%: 107 sites81%: 105 sites82%: 116 sites83%: 100 sites84%: 106 sites85%: 87 sites86%: 71 sites87%: 73 sites88%: 59 sites89%: 65 sites90%: 36 sites91%: 47 sites92%: 38 sites93%: 24 sites94%: 16 sites95%: 12 sites96%: 12 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 5 sites99%: 2 sites100%: 68 sites71% 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 critical issues including broken links, redirect chains, and multiple title/meta description issues. Prioritize fixing these for improved SEO performance.

  1. 1

    Fix Broken Links

    Why: 20855 internal links to broken URLs can harm user experience and SEO.

    How: Identify broken URLs in your site and either update or remove links pointing to them.

    Checks: broken-links

  2. 2

    Address Redirect Chains

    Why: Redirect chains can slow down page loading and negatively impact SEO.

    How: Reduce or eliminate chain redirects by updating inbound links to point directly to the final URLs.

    Checks: redirects

  3. 3

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: 1448 URLs not responding correctly hurt indexing and user experience.

    How: Review the URLs that returned errors and correct or remove them.

    Checks: status-codes

  4. 4

    Improve Title Tags

    Why: 1356 pages have title issues, which can decrease click-through rates.

    How: Enhance titles to align with best practices (30-60 characters) and ensure they accurately reflect the page content.

    Checks: titles

  5. 5

    Optimize Meta Descriptions

    Why: 1893 pages with meta description issues can lead to lower visibility in search results.

    How: Add or update meta descriptions to be concise and engaging, ideally between 70-160 characters.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  6. 6

    Fix Orphan Pages

    Why: 51 orphan pages are not linked internally, limiting their visibility.

    How: Add internal links to these pages from relevant content to improve their discoverability.

    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

The security review of your website identified critical issues including missing MIME sniffing protection headers, mixed content loading, and vulnerabilities in a JavaScript library. Priority fixes are required to enhance security against common threats.

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

    Mixed Content IssuesMedium

    Why it matters: 47 resources are loaded over HTTP, which can be blocked or tampered with.

    Fix: Update URLs to use HTTPS or host required resources securely.

    Evidence: Mixed content

  2. 2

    Vulnerable JavaScript Library DetectedMedium

    Why it matters: jQuery version 1.9.1 has multiple vulnerabilities that could be exploited.

    Fix: Upgrade jQuery to version 3.5.0 or later.

    Evidence: Vulnerable JavaScript libraries

  3. 3

    Leaked Google API KeyMedium

    Why it matters: A Google API key is exposed in site code, increasing the risk of misuse.

    Fix: Restrict this key by HTTP referrer and configure API settings in Google Cloud.

    Evidence: Keys and secrets in page code

  4. 4

    Missing X-Content-Type-Options HeaderLow

    Why it matters: 3429 out of 3548 HTML pages lack this header, risking MIME sniffing attacks.

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

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  5. 5

    Third-Party Scripts Without Subresource IntegrityLow

    Why it matters: Scripts from external domains can be compromised, risking site integrity.

    Fix: Implement a Content-Security-Policy and explore using Subresource Integrity for scripts.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

  6. 6

    Sensitive Paths Listed in robots.txtInfo

    Why it matters: The robots.txt discloses paths that may be sensitive, acting as a potential map for attackers.

    Fix: Ensure sensitive paths are protected by proper access controls.

    Evidence: Sensitive paths in robots.txt

What the checks found

  • FoundMIME sniffing protectionLow

    3429 of 3548 HTML pages send 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://moz.com/login → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/mozcast → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/api/docs → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/api/dashboard/usage → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/freemium/keyword-explorer → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/freemium/competitive-research → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/freemium/local/check-listing → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/subscriptions → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/freemium/brand-authority-freemium-form → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/api/docs/welcome → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/api/dashboard → no x-content-type-options
    • https://moz.com/api/docs/guides/getting-started → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundMixed contentMedium

    47 resources on HTTPS pages are loaded over plain HTTP, 2 of them scripts or stylesheets that browsers block or that can be tampered with in transit.

    • https://moz.com/about/team/funnylookinhat loads image http://i.imgur.com/ctECATe.gif
    • https://moz.com/about/team/funnylookinhat loads image http://i.imgur.com/8knHvsl.gif
    • https://moz.com/blog/google-instant-fewer-changes-to-seo-than-the-ave… loads image http://blog.conductor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Research-visits-search-term-length-5…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/facebook-traffic-380x239.png
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-15-at-8…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IMG_1055-380x310.png
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/facebook-group-reach-760x27…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-15-at-9…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-16-at-9…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-15-at-8…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-16-at-9…
    • https://moz.com/blog/how-to-build-a-facebook-group loads image http://www.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-16-at-1…
  • FoundVulnerable JavaScript librariesMedium

    1 library with published vulnerabilities: jQuery 1.9.1. Whether they are exploitable depends on how the site uses them, but each has a fixed release.

    • jQuery 1.9.1 in https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.9.1/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
  • FoundKeys and secrets in page codeMedium

    1 credential-like value found in code served to every visitor: Google API key.

    • Google API key AIzaSy…gM (39 chars) in https://moz.com/_next/static/chunks/app/layout-cb8694025ce8e31e.js: browser keys are expected in pages, but must be restricted by HTTP referrer and API in the Google Cloud console
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 6 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.)

    • cloud.wordlift.io (39 script tags)
    • cdn.ziffstatic.com (39 script tags)
    • moz-static.moz.com (156 script tags)
    • static.cloudflareinsights.com (39 script tags)
    • fast.wistia.com (11 script tags)
    • js.hsforms.net (8 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: /admin-preview/*
7 checks passed, 3 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 3548 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKHTTP Strict Transport Security

    strict-transport-security is set on all 3548 HTML pages.

  • OKContent Security Policy

    A Content-Security-Policy is set on 1201 of 3548 pages.

  • OKClickjacking protection

    x-frame-options is set on all 3548 HTML pages.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

    The Server header names a product without a version, and there is no X-Powered-By header.

  • OKForms over HTTPS

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

  • 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 moz.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 moz.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own moz.com?