Scanned sites / valleycorp.com / 2026-09-28-1500

valleycorp.com scan from 2026-09-28 15:00:01 UTC DR 10

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

Scan 2026-09-28-1500

Scanned 2026-09-28 15:00:01 UTC, finished 2026-09-28 15:24:50 UTC. Found on page 1 of chatgpt for browser (api usage) results

Site: https://valleycorp.com/

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

70/ 100Needs work

On September 28, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 224 pages and 1266 assets of valleycorp.com, starting from https://valleycorp.com/. It scored 70 out of 100, a result that needs work. 13 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by meta descriptions (163), heavy assets (70), sitemap coverage (197); 5 checks passed. Most of the points went to meta descriptions (−6.5), heavy assets (−6), sitemap coverage (−5.9). 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: Medium3 medium, 3 low and 1 info findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
224
Assets fetched
1266
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
13 of 27
CoverageJob finished, partial coverage

1,490 of 1,493 discovered URLs were fetched, 564 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. 74 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tags81 issues
    81 of 197 pages have title issues. 5 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −4 points
  • Meta descriptions163 issues
    163 of 197 pages have meta description issues. 5 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −6.5 points
  • Headings94 issues
    94 of 197 pages have heading issues. 5 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −2.8 points
  • Broken links16 issues
    54 internal links point at 16 broken URLs.
    −1.6 points
  • Links to other sites3 issues
    3 destinations answered with an error, 22 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 74 destinations checked.
    −0.6 points
  • Redirects6 issues
    7 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
    −0.1 points
  • Non-200 responses16 issues
    24 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 22 of them are pages, 16 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
    −0.8 points
  • Rate limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • Indexability4 issues
    4 of 202 indexable pages have indexability warnings.
    −0.2 points
  • Image alt text284 issues
    284 of 2207 image references have no alt attribute. 1352 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −0.8 points
  • Heavy assets70 issues
    70 assets larger than 500 KB among 1266 fetched assets.
    −6 points
  • Orphan pagesOK
    0 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverage197 issues
    1 sitemap listing 0 URLs: 197 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −5.9 points
  • Internal link counts91 noted
    Internal link counts for 202 pages; 91 worth a look.
  • Thin content11 issues
    11 of 197 pages have fewer than 200 words. 5 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −0.4 points
  • Duplicate content16 issues
    1 group of pages with identical HTML.
    −0.6 points
  • URL format37 noted
    37 of 224 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals5 noted
    5 of 202 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives202 noted
    202 pages carry a robots directive; 0 carry none.
  • Anchor text85 noted
    85 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure55 noted
    55 of 197 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 5 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length131 noted
    131 images over 100 KB; 0 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomalies1 noted
    1 URL 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 404sOK
    None of 202 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
    1 cookie set by the site; 12 response headers recorded across 1490 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 202 pages; 105 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 68 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

2905 sites, median 80%, average 79%

valleycorp.com scores 70%, higher than 16% of the 2905 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0761520%: 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%: 2 sites37%: 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%: 10 sites55%: 10 sites56%: 8 sites57%: 17 sites58%: 18 sites59%: 10 sites60%: 16 sites61%: 13 sites62%: 20 sites63%: 29 sites64%: 22 sites65%: 33 sites66%: 43 sites67%: 43 sites68%: 42 sites69%: 55 sites70%: 48 sites71%: 79 sites72%: 77 sites73%: 82 sites74%: 82 sites75%: 87 sites76%: 95 sites77%: 109 sites78%: 133 sites79%: 113 sites80%: 129 sites81%: 123 sites82%: 136 sites83%: 121 sites84%: 130 sites85%: 106 sites86%: 97 sites87%: 94 sites88%: 82 sites89%: 75 sites90%: 58 sites91%: 62 sites92%: 44 sites93%: 31 sites94%: 25 sites95%: 16 sites96%: 18 sites97%: 16 sites98%: 8 sites99%: 3 sites100%: 152 sites70% 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 (rules v4). 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 technical SEO issues that need addressing to improve visibility and user experience. Key focus should be on fixing broken links, optimizing meta descriptions and titles, enhancing sitemap coverage, and addressing heading problems.

  1. 1

    Fix Broken Links

    Why: Broken links create poor user experiences and negatively affect SEO.

    How: Update or remove links pointing to broken URLs listed in the findings.

    Checks: broken-links

  2. 2

    Enhance Sitemap Coverage

    Why: Improving sitemap coverage ensures all important pages are indexed by search engines.

    How: Update your sitemap to include the 197 missing URLs identified in the findings.

    Evidence: 197 URLs: not in sitemap.

    197 pages affected

    Checks: sitemap-coverage

  3. 3

    Optimize Meta Descriptions

    Why: Proper meta descriptions enhance click-through rates from search results.

    How: Write original meta descriptions for the 111 pages missing them as noted in the findings.

    Evidence: 111 pages have no meta description at all.

    111 pages affected

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  4. 4

    Revise Title Tags

    Why: Optimized titles improve search engine rankings and user engagement.

    How: Adjust the titles for the 81 pages with issues, ensuring they meet best practices for length and relevance.

    Checks: titles

  5. 5

    Resolve Heading Issues

    Why: Properly structured headings improve readability and SEO performance.

    How: Correct the heading structure for the 94 pages identified with issues, ensuring only one H1 per page and proper hierarchy.

    Checks: headings

  6. 6

    Address Indexability Warnings

    Why: Ensuring all important pages are indexable is crucial for SEO success.

    How: Review and fix the 4 pages with indexability warnings listed in the findings, ensuring proper canonicalization.

    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 lacks critical security headers that protect against various attacks, including man-in-the-middle interception and clickjacking. Implementing these headers is essential for users' safety and to enhance the overall security posture of your site.

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

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, users may unintentionally access the site over HTTP, exposing them to interception.

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

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium

    Why it matters: Lack of CSP allows scripts to be loaded from any source, increasing risk of XSS attacks.

    Fix: Implement a CSP header like 'Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'' to limit script sources.

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  3. 3

    Missing Clickjacking ProtectionMedium

    Why it matters: Without X-Frame-Options, your site can be embedded in malicious frames, leading to clickjacking.

    Fix: Add the header 'X-Frame-Options: DENY' or use a CSP frame-ancestors directive.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  4. 4

    Missing MIME Sniffing ProtectionLow

    Why it matters: Without X-Content-Type-Options, browsers may incorrectly execute files, posing security risks.

    Fix: Include the header 'X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff' in your responses.

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  5. 5

    Missing Referrer PolicyLow

    Why it matters: Absence of a referrer policy can lead to sensitive URL information being shared with external sites.

    Fix: Add 'Referrer-Policy: no-referrer' to control referrer information shared.

    Evidence: Referrer policy

  6. 6

    Third-party Scripts Without Subresource IntegrityLow

    Why it matters: Using scripts from other domains without SRI exposes the site to risks if those domains are compromised.

    Fix: Either implement SRI for these scripts or add them to a CSP that allows only trusted sources.

    Evidence: Third-party scripts

  7. 7

    Missing Permissions PolicyInfo

    Why it matters: A lack of Permissions-Policy means unnecessary features may be available to potential attackers.

    Fix: Set the header 'Permissions-Policy: geolocation=(), microphone=(), camera=()' to restrict unused features.

    Evidence: Permissions policy

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://valleycorp.com/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/about/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/company-history/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/projects/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/testimonials/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/rodeo/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/services/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/underground-utility-construction/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/concrete-paving/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/site-preparation/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/communication-electrical/ → no strict-transport-security
    • https://valleycorp.com/structures/ → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 202 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://valleycorp.com/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/about/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/company-history/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/projects/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/testimonials/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/rodeo/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/services/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/underground-utility-construction/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/concrete-paving/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/site-preparation/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/communication-electrical/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/structures/ → no content-security-policy
  • FoundClickjacking protectionMedium

    No HTML page sends 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://valleycorp.com/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/about/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/company-history/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/projects/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/testimonials/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/rodeo/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/services/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/underground-utility-construction/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/concrete-paving/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/site-preparation/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/communication-electrical/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/structures/ → no x-frame-options
  • FoundMIME sniffing protectionLow

    No HTML page sends 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://valleycorp.com/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/about/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/company-history/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/projects/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/testimonials/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/rodeo/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/services/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/underground-utility-construction/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/concrete-paving/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/site-preparation/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/communication-electrical/ → no x-content-type-options
    • https://valleycorp.com/structures/ → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundReferrer policyLow

    No HTML page sends referrer-policy. Without a Referrer-Policy the full page address, including any query string, is sent to every site a visitor clicks through to.

    • https://valleycorp.com/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/about/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/company-history/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/projects/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/testimonials/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/rodeo/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/services/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/underground-utility-construction/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/concrete-paving/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/site-preparation/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/communication-electrical/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/structures/ → no referrer-policy
  • FoundPermissions policyInfo

    No HTML page sends permissions-policy. A Permissions-Policy header turns off browser features the site does not use (camera, microphone, geolocation), limiting what an injected script could do.

    • https://valleycorp.com/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/about/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/company-history/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/projects/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/testimonials/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/rodeo/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/services/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/underground-utility-construction/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/concrete-paving/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/site-preparation/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/communication-electrical/ → no permissions-policy
    • https://valleycorp.com/structures/ → no permissions-policy
  • 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.)

    • img1.wsimg.com (40 script tags)
    • assets.viewpointhr-ats.com (1 script tag)
8 checks passed, 1 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 202 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

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

  • OKCookie flags

    All 1 cookie carry Secure, HttpOnly and SameSite flags.

  • OKMixed content

    No HTTPS page loads a script, stylesheet, font or image over plain HTTP.

  • OKVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    1 library version 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.

  • 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.

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

Own valleycorp.com?