Scanned sites / trends.google.com / 2026-09-13-0340
trends.google.com scan from 2026-09-13 03:40:12 UTC DR 100
A newer scan exists. See the latest report for trends.google.com.
DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.
Scan 2026-09-13-0340
Scanned 2026-09-13 03:40:12 UTC, finished 2026-09-13 03:44:15 UTC. Found with 42backlinks.com tool directory
Site: https://trends.google.com/
Download SQLite databaseEvery page and asset from this scan, with the crawl events, in one file.
On September 13, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 5 pages and 5 assets of trends.google.com, starting from https://trends.google.com/. It scored 78 out of 100, a good result. 7 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by title tags (3), meta descriptions (2), image alt text (47); 13 checks passed. Most of the points went to title tags (−7.5), meta descriptions (−4), image alt text (−3.4). 7 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 and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓
- Pages crawled
- 5
- Assets fetched
- 5
- Status
- Completed
- Checks with issues
- 7 of 27
10 of 10 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 25 link destinations on other sites were checked.
- Title tags3 issues3 of 3 pages have title issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.−7.5 points
- Meta descriptions2 issues2 of 3 pages have meta description issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.−4 points
- HeadingsOK0 of 3 pages have heading issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
- Broken linksOK0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
- Links to other sites1 issue1 destination answered with an error, 6 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 25 destinations checked.−0.4 points
- Redirects2 noted2 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
- Non-200 responses3 noted3 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 limitedOKThe site did not rate limit the crawler.
- Indexability1 issue1 of 4 indexable pages have indexability warnings.−2.5 points
- Image alt text47 issues47 of 82 image references have no alt attribute. 32 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.−3.4 points
- Heavy assetsOK0 assets larger than 500 KB among 5 fetched assets.
- Orphan pages1 issue1 page have no internal links pointing at them.−1 points
- Sitemap coverage2 issuesNo sitemap found. Tried: https://trends.google.com/sitemap.xml (301), https://trends.google.com/trends/sitemap.xml (404). Add one at /sitemap.xml or list it in robots.txt.−3 points
- Internal link counts1 notedInternal link counts for 4 pages; 1 worth a look.
- Thin contentOK0 of 3 pages have fewer than 200 words. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
- Duplicate contentOK0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
- URL format1 noted1 of 5 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
- Canonicals1 noted1 of 4 pages have a canonical worth checking.
- Robots directivesOKNo page carries a robots directive; all 4 pages are open to search engines.
- Anchor textOKEvery internal link has descriptive, followed anchor text.
- Title and heading structure3 noted3 of 3 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
- Image weight and alt lengthOKNo image is over 100 KB or carries alt text over 100 characters.
- Response anomaliesOKNo redirect loops, header redirects or pages served as something other than HTML.
- HTML and head validationNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- hreflangNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Structured dataNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Near duplicatesNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Soft 404sOKNone of 4 pages answering 200 reads like an error page.
- AccessibilityNot checkedNot checked: the accessibility audit runs in the browser. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to run it.
- Link positionsNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before link positions were recorded. Scan the site again to run it.
- PaginationNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Headers and cookiesOK0 cookies set by the site; 12 response headers recorded across 10 URLs.
- Orphans in searchNot checkedNot checked: import a Search Console Pages export on the scan page to find pages Google shows that the site does not link to.
- Link ScoreOKLink Score (internal PageRank, 0-100) for 4 pages; 0 hold almost none (10 or less).
- JavaScript renderingNot checkedNot 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 notedMobile performance 50 on average across 5 pages; 5 below Google's good thresholds.
- SpellingNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
Where this scan sits among all scanned sites
2337 sites, median 79%, average 78%
trends.google.com scores 78%, higher than 42% of the 2337 scanned sites. See the full ranking.
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...
Fix plan
Written by gpt-4o-mini from the scan findingsWritten 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 has several issues that need fixing, particularly with redirects, status codes, titles, meta descriptions, and a sitemap. Addressing these will improve SEO and user experience.
- 1
Fix Redirects
Why: Redirects can create confusion for users and search engines, impacting rankings.
How: Update URLs to eliminate redirects, particularly for the sitemap URL. Change redirects to their final destinations.
Checks: redirects
- 2
Resolve Non-200 Responses
Why: Non-200 responses hinder crawlability and accessibility, lowering SEO performance.
How: Check the URLs that returned 301 and 404 errors. Ensure they point to valid pages.
Checks: status-codes
- 3
Improve Title Tags
Why: Short and duplicate titles reduce SEO effectiveness and may confuse users.
How: Adjust titles to be unique and at least 30 characters long for all pages.
Checks: titles
- 4
Enhance Meta Descriptions
Why: Duplicate meta descriptions can negatively affect click-through rates.
How: Craft unique meta descriptions for all relevant pages, between 50-160 characters.
Checks: meta-descriptions
- 5
Create Sitemap
Why: A sitemap is essential for search engines to index your pages properly.
How: Create a sitemap and add it to https://trends.google.com/sitemap.xml or list it in robots.txt.
Checks: sitemap-coverage
- 6
Address Indexability Warnings
Why: Indexability warnings can prevent important pages from being indexed.
How: Add a viewport meta tag to the affected pages to enhance usability on mobile.
Checks: indexability
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 crawlThe site trends.google.com has several security issues that need to be addressed, including a lack of HTTP Strict Transport Security and inadequate protection against clickjacking. Additionally, the Content Security Policy permits unsafe script execution, increasing vulnerability to script injection attacks. Immediate action is recommended to mitigate these risks.
- 0 high
- 3 medium
- 1 low
- 0 info
- 1
Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium
Why it matters: Without HSTS, visitors can be intercepted on their first request if they do not use HTTPS.
Fix: Implement HSTS by adding the header: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security
- 2
Missing Clickjacking Protection (X-Frame-Options)Medium
Why it matters: Lack of this protection allows pages to be framed, leading to clickjacking attacks.
Fix: Add the header: X-Frame-Options: DENY or X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN
Evidence: Clickjacking protection
- 3
Insecure Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium
Why it matters: The CSP allows unsafe-inline scripts, which can be exploited for injection attacks.
Fix: Update the CSP to remove 'unsafe-inline'. For example: script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-<your_nonce>'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self';
Evidence: Content Security Policy
- 4
Third-Party Scripts Without Subresource Integrity (SRI)Low
Why it matters: This increases the risk that compromised third-party scripts could execute harmful code.
Fix: Add Subresource Integrity (SRI) attributes to all third-party script tags or define them in the CSP.
Evidence: Third-party scripts
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://trends.google.com/trends/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://trends.google.com/home → no strict-transport-security
- https://trends.google.com/tv/?rows=3&cols=4 → no strict-transport-security
- https://trends.google.com/trending → no strict-transport-security
- FoundClickjacking protectionMedium
3 of 4 HTML pages send 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://trends.google.com/tv/?rows=3&cols=4 → no x-frame-options
- NoteContent Security Policy
A Content-Security-Policy is set, but it allows inline or eval scripts ('unsafe-inline' / 'unsafe-eval'), which removes most of its protection against injected scripts.
- https://trends.google.com/trends/ → script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-n3kLggFhwG_39i8Dz0_imQ' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self', require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport
- https://trends.google.com/home → require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport, script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-mVrA7-cj76h90rQvmM_UwQ' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self'
- https://trends.google.com/tv/?rows=3&cols=4 → require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /tv/_/TrendsTvUi/cspreport, script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-vGFbNHU6tZyPUb9HMOmomA' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /tv/_/TrendsTvUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self'
- https://trends.google.com/trending → script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-zBtsmPvkVmP0ft_f40rWzQ' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self', require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport
- 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.)
- www.gstatic.com (1 script tag)
- www.googletagmanager.com (1 script tag)
7 checks passed, 5 not applicable
- OKHTTPS
All 4 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.
- OKMIME sniffing protection
x-content-type-options is set on all 4 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.
- 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.
- OKSensitive paths in robots.txt
robots.txt does not point at admin, backup or private paths.
- 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.
- Not applicableVulnerable JavaScript libraries
No recognisable library versions were found in the sampled scripts.
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 trends.google.com
Their neighbours in the SEO rank table, which orders every scanned site by health score.
- sanctuaryvethospital.comDR 679/100 · rank 1160 · 81 pages
- franklinphotographywa.comDR 1079/100 · rank 1160 · 21 pages
- www.advancedhealthphysio.comDR 1278/100 · rank 1244 · 76 pages
- eliances.comDR 1978/100 · rank 1244 · 4,986 pages
- rankmath.comDR 8878/100 · rank 1244 · 4,998 pages
- www.csqualita.itDR 1178/100 · rank 1244 · 440 pages
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 trends.google.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.
Own trends.google.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 trends.google.com. Removal needs no account and no proof of purchase.