Scanned sites / trends.google.com / 2026-11-03-0610

trends.google.com scan from 2026-11-03 06:10:40 UTC DR 100

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

Scan 2026-11-03-0610

Scanned 2026-11-03 06:10:40 UTC, finished 2026-11-03 06:35:22 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.

79/ 100Good

On November 3, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 5 pages and 5 assets of trends.google.com, starting from https://trends.google.com/. It scored 79 out of 100, a good result. 7 of 33 checks found something to fix, led by title tags (3), meta descriptions (2), image alt text (37); 17 checks passed. Most of the points went to title tags (−7.5), meta descriptions (−4), image alt text (−3). 9 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 4 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 and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
5
Assets fetched
5
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
7 of 33
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 text37 issues
    37 of 74 image references have no alt attribute. 34 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −3 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 counts1 noted
    Internal link counts for 4 pages; 1 worth a look.
  • 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.
  • URL format1 noted
    1 of 5 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals1 noted
    1 of 4 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directivesOK
    No page carries a robots directive; all 4 pages are open to search engines.
  • Anchor textOK
    Every internal link has descriptive, followed anchor text.
  • Title and heading structure3 noted
    3 of 3 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 1 noindex or canonicalized page excluded.
  • Image weight and alt lengthOK
    No image is over 100 KB or carries alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomaliesOK
    No redirect loops, header redirects or pages served as something other than HTML.
  • HTML and head validationOK
    All 4 pages keep their head tags in <head>, once each, under Googlebot's 2 MB.
  • hreflangOK
    No page declares hreflang.
  • Structured dataOK
    2 of 3 indexable pages carry structured data: WebSite (2), Organization (2). 0 pages with errors a rich result would fail on.
  • Near duplicates2 noted
    2 pages in 1 group read almost the same as another page (95% alike or more).
  • Soft 404sOK
    None of 4 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 positionsOK
    0 of 2 linked pages are linked only from the template, never from another page's content.
  • PaginationOK
    No page declares rel=next or rel=prev pagination.
  • Headers and cookies1 noted
    1 cookie set by the site, 1 missing a protective flag; 14 response headers recorded across 10 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 4 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 InsightsNot checked
    Not checked yet: PageSpeed Insights runs on the top pages once the crawl has finished.
  • Spelling31 noted
    31 words an English dictionary does not know, on 3 pages. Product names and jargon will appear here too.

Where this scan sits among all scanned sites

2696 sites, median 80%, average 78%

trends.google.com scores 79%, higher than 45% of the 2696 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0631260%: 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%: 6 sites52%: 8 sites53%: 9 sites54%: 10 sites55%: 9 sites56%: 7 sites57%: 16 sites58%: 18 sites59%: 9 sites60%: 15 sites61%: 13 sites62%: 20 sites63%: 29 sites64%: 21 sites65%: 33 sites66%: 40 sites67%: 40 sites68%: 38 sites69%: 50 sites70%: 46 sites71%: 78 sites72%: 74 sites73%: 82 sites74%: 77 sites75%: 87 sites76%: 96 sites77%: 107 sites78%: 123 sites79%: 109 sites80%: 124 sites81%: 120 sites82%: 122 sites83%: 118 sites84%: 126 sites85%: 102 sites86%: 90 sites87%: 91 sites88%: 76 sites89%: 73 sites90%: 51 sites91%: 56 sites92%: 40 sites93%: 28 sites94%: 23 sites95%: 14 sites96%: 17 sites97%: 15 sites98%: 7 sites99%: 2 sites100%: 71 sites79% 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 site has a good health score but needs improvements for better performance. Key actions are required for redirects, titles, meta descriptions, indexability, and sitemap. Implementing these fixes will enhance SEO.

  1. 1

    Create a Sitemap

    Why: A sitemap aids in indexing, improving crawl efficiency.

    How: Create and upload a sitemap.xml at the root URL. List pages to increase visibility.

    Evidence: One URL: no sitemap found.

    1 page affected

    Checks: sitemap-coverage

  2. 2

    Fix Redirect Loops

    Why: Redirects can dilute link equity and confuse crawlers.

    How: Remove unnecessary redirects; point directly to the final URL where possible.

    Checks: redirects

  3. 3

    Improve Title Tags

    Why: Unique, descriptive titles improve click-through rates.

    How: Assign unique titles to each page that accurately represent their content.

    Evidence: 2 pages share the title "Google Trends", which usually means one template writes it for all of them.

    2 pages affected

    Depends on: If these pages really are the same content, the duplicate title is a symptom: canonicalise them to one URL instead.

    Checks: titles

  4. 4

    Enhance Meta Descriptions

    Why: Unique meta descriptions can increase search result clicks.

    How: Create distinct meta descriptions for each page to better describe the content.

    Evidence: 2 pages share the meta description "Explore search interest of terms and topics by time, locati…", which usually means one template writes it for all of them.

    2 pages affected

    Depends on: If these pages really are the same content, the duplicate meta description is a symptom: canonicalise them to one URL instead.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  5. 5

    Resolve Indexability Warning

    Why: Fixing indexability issues can improve search performance.

    How: Add a viewport meta tag to the flagged page for better mobile optimization.

    Evidence: One page flagged: No viewport meta.

    1 page affected

    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 crawl

Your website has several security issues that need addressing. Notably, it lacks HTTP Strict Transport Security, which increases the risk of interception. Additionally, some clickjacking protection is missing, cookies aren't properly secured, and your Content Security Policy permits unsafe scripts, making it vulnerable to injection attacks.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, users can be intercepted on initial HTTP requests.

    Fix: Add the header 'Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains' to all pages.

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Without this, pages can be embedded in frames, risking clickjacking.

    Fix: Add the header 'X-Frame-Options: DENY' to the vulnerable page.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    Insecure Cookie FlagsMedium

    Why it matters: Missing attributes make cookies vulnerable to attacks.

    Fix: Set the flags 'Secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax' for the NID cookie.

    Evidence: Cookie flags

  4. 4

    Insecure Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium

    Why it matters: Allows unsafe inline scripts, increasing XSS risk.

    Fix: Remove 'unsafe-inline' and add appropriate nonce or hash for scripts.

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  5. 5

    Third-Party Scripts Lack Subresource IntegrityLow

    Why it matters: Scripts from other domains can be altered to run malicious code.

    Fix: Implement Subresource Integrity for external scripts or update CSP to restrict sources.

    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-SpV6VAo0nghMUIqSxnOkbw' '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-z2Nju6YfqNkpZIysmx8izA' '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-xa3nhpxZzqCpegrvYGiOdQ' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /tv/_/TrendsTvUi/cspreport;worker-src 'self'
    • https://trends.google.com/trending → require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/TrendsUi/cspreport, script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-grsVvLtZP-M26bEEb8GfTA' '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.

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.