Scanned sites / trends.google.com / 2026-10-01-0358

trends.google.com scan from 10/1/2026, 3:58:17 AM

Scan 2026-10-01-0358

Scanned 10/1/2026, 3:58:17 AM, finished 10/1/2026, 4:24:06 AM. 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.

80/ 100Good

On October 1, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 5 pages and 5 assets of trends.google.com, starting from https://trends.google.com/. It scored 80 out of 100, a good result. 7 of 16 checks found something to fix, led by title tags (3), meta descriptions (2), sitemap coverage (2); 6 checks passed. Most of the points went to title tags (−7.5), meta descriptions (−4), sitemap coverage (−3). 3 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 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 and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
5
Assets fetched
5
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
7 of 16
CoverageComplete crawl

10 of 10 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 26 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags3 issues
    3 of 3 pages have title issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
    −7.5 points
  • Meta descriptions2 issues
    2 of 3 pages have meta description issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
    −4 points
  • HeadingsOK
    0 of 3 pages have heading issues. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites1 issue
    1 destination answered with an error, 6 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 26 destinations checked.
    −0.4 points
  • Redirects2 noted
    2 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses3 noted
    3 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 limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • Indexability1 issue
    1 of 4 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
    −2.5 points
  • Image alt text24 issues
    24 of 61 image references have no alt attribute. 34 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −2.4 points
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 5 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pages1 issue
    1 page have no internal links pointing at them.
    −1 points
  • Sitemap coverage2 issues
    No 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 countsOK
    Internal link counts for 4 pages.
  • Thin contentOK
    0 of 3 pages have fewer than 200 words. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.

Where this scan sits among all scanned sites

1436 sites, median 80%, average 79%

trends.google.com scores 80%, higher than 47% of the 1436 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

043850%: 0 sites1%: 0 sites2%: 0 sites3%: 0 sites4%: 0 sites5%: 0 sites6%: 0 sites7%: 0 sites8%: 0 sites9%: 0 sites10%: 0 sites11%: 0 sites12%: 0 sites13%: 0 sites14%: 0 sites15%: 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%: 1 site36%: 1 site37%: 1 site38%: 1 site39%: 0 sites40%: 1 site41%: 0 sites42%: 0 sites43%: 1 site44%: 0 sites45%: 3 sites46%: 2 sites47%: 2 sites48%: 2 sites49%: 3 sites50%: 3 sites51%: 5 sites52%: 6 sites53%: 5 sites54%: 6 sites55%: 4 sites56%: 3 sites57%: 5 sites58%: 10 sites59%: 5 sites60%: 8 sites61%: 11 sites62%: 15 sites63%: 14 sites64%: 8 sites65%: 14 sites66%: 15 sites67%: 26 sites68%: 24 sites69%: 17 sites70%: 34 sites71%: 33 sites72%: 42 sites73%: 33 sites74%: 41 sites75%: 46 sites76%: 54 sites77%: 47 sites78%: 66 sites79%: 53 sites80%: 72 sites81%: 85 sites82%: 72 sites83%: 67 sites84%: 61 sites85%: 46 sites86%: 50 sites87%: 49 sites88%: 51 sites89%: 37 sites90%: 30 sites91%: 33 sites92%: 19 sites93%: 9 sites94%: 10 sites95%: 7 sites96%: 6 sites97%: 5 sites98%: 1 site99%: 2 sites100%: 51 sites80% 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

Your website has a good health score, but it needs some critical fixes for better performance and SEO. Addressing the sitemap, title, and meta description issues will improve indexability and search visibility.

  1. 1

    Implement a Sitemap

    Why: A sitemap helps search engines discover your pages more efficiently.

    How: Create a sitemap.xml file listing your important URLs. Place it at /sitemap.xml and include it in your robots.txt file.

    Checks: sitemap-coverage

  2. 2

    Fix Title Tag Issues

    Why: Improving duplicate title tags helps clarify page content to both users and search engines.

    How: Create unique and descriptive title tags for all pages, ensuring they are longer than 30 characters.

    Checks: titles

  3. 3

    Enhance Meta Descriptions

    Why: Distinct meta descriptions improve click-through rates from search results.

    How: Assign unique meta descriptions to the affected pages, avoiding replication.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  4. 4

    Resolve Indexability Warning

    Why: Addressing indexability issues helps ensure your pages are fully indexed.

    How: Add a viewport meta tag to the flagged page to enhance mobile usability and indexability.

    Checks: indexability

  5. 5

    Add Image Alt Text

    Why: Descriptive alt text improves accessibility and SEO for images.

    How: Add relevant descriptive alt attributes to images that currently lack them.

    Checks: images-alt

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 trends.google.com revealed several important issues. Key vulnerabilities include missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which can make users susceptible to interception, and lack of Clickjacking protection on some pages. Additionally, cookies are not set with protective flags, which is a significant risk. Actions should be taken to enhance security headers and improve content security policies.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, a visitor typing the URL without HTTPS can be intercepted.

    Fix: Add the following header: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing Clickjacking ProtectionMedium

    Why it matters: Some pages lack X-Frame-Options, which can allow clickjacking attacks.

    Fix: Add the following header: X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    Cookies Missing Protective FlagsMedium

    Why it matters: Cookies can be read by scripts or sent over plain HTTP without proper flags.

    Fix: Set the following attributes for the NID cookie: Secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax

    Evidence: Cookie flags

  4. 4

    Insecure Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium

    Why it matters: The CSP allows 'unsafe-inline' scripts, reducing injection protection.

    Fix: Update CSP to remove 'unsafe-inline' and use 'nonce' or 'hash' for scripts instead.

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  5. 5

    Third-Party Scripts Without Subresource IntegrityLow

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

    Fix: Implement Subresource Integrity (SRI) or limit the external domains 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
  • FoundCookie flagsMedium

    1 of 1 cookie are missing protective flags. Without HttpOnly a script can read the cookie; without Secure it travels over plain HTTP; without SameSite it is sent on cross-site requests.

    • NID (set by https://trends.google.com/trends/) lacks Secure, SameSite
  • 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/ → require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport, script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-G6c-kCCQBQONbH7bQ0pprg' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self'
    • https://trends.google.com/home → require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport, script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-eUeheusc-jEHVitxdxEeAw' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self'
    • https://trends.google.com/tv/?rows=3&cols=4 → script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-OZzRUYwE5NcWYzUCuGgzsw' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /tv/_/TrendsTvUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self', require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /tv/_/TrendsTvUi/cspreport
    • https://trends.google.com/trending → require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport, script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-eXQSqTtegltaJPWvKtl7rQ' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self'
  • 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)
9 checks passed, 2 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.

  • OKReferrer policy

    A referrer policy is set through a <meta name="referrer"> tag.

  • OKPermissions policy

    permissions-policy 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 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.

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.
trends.google.com scan 2026-10-01-0358 | DIY SEO Hub