microsoft.com
Ranked #57 of 300 on the Leaderboard. Analyzed .
Index Quotient
79.48
Technical Health
73.64Whether search engines can fetch, trust, and quickly load the site.
Strengths
- URL and canonical hygieneStrong
URLs are clean and consistent, each page has one address, and missing pages say so.
- Safe to visitStrong
Nothing marks this site as unsafe to visit.
Opportunities
- SpeedPartial
Pages load reasonably but not quickly, so visitors wait longer than they need to.
- CrawlabilityPartial
Crawlers can get in, but not everything helps them along: a complete sitemap, working links and pages that are allowed into the index are what to check.
- Secure connectionPartial
The connection is encrypted but not fully hardened: steering every visit onto it and sending the standard security headers would finish the job.
Content Quality
88.33Whether pages say clearly what they are about, in a form machines can read.
Strengths
- Titles and descriptionsStrong
Every page has a clear title and a description of its own, and shares well when linked.
- Depth and readabilityStrong
Pages say enough to be useful, in plain language, and stay on the topic their titles promise.
- Images and linksStrong
Images are described in text, and pages link to each other with links that say where they go.
Opportunities
Nothing stands out to work on here. The most room left is in Depth and readability.
Answer Readiness
64.45Whether content is shaped and marked up so an engine can lift a direct answer.
Strengths
- Question-and-answer shapeStrong
Pages pose the questions people ask and answer them in a paragraph right under the heading.
- Scannable formattingStrong
Pages open with a short summary and use lists and tables, so an engine can lift the facts without reading everything.
Opportunities
- Structured dataPartial
Structured data is partly there: not on every page, not always complete, and not always the types that earn rich results.
- Navigation aidsWeak
Few pages show their place in the site, so engines see pages rather than a structure.
AI Visibility
73.84Whether AI systems can reach, read, and confidently identify the site.
Strengths
- AI accessStrong
AI crawlers are allowed in, and pages may be quoted in AI answers.
- Readable without JavaScriptStrong
The content is in the page itself, marked out from the navigation, and written in prose a machine can lift.
Opportunities
- IdentityPartial
Who is behind the site is partly clear; an About page, a Contact page, and markup naming the organization would let machines say so with confidence.
- Authorship and sourcingPartial
Some articles say who wrote them and when, and some pages cite sources; the rest should say so too.
- FeedsMissing
There is no feed and the sitemap carries no dates, so nothing tells a machine when something new appears; a feed is a small addition.
Authority
97.16Whether the wider web vouches for the site.
Strengths
- BacklinksStrong
Plenty of other sites link here, including ones that matter.
- TrafficStrong
The site has a large audience.
- Domain historyStrong
The domain has a long history, and history counts.
Opportunities
Nothing stands out to work on here.
Nearby on the Leaderboard
- #56
theonion.com79.49
- #57
microsoft.com79.48
- #58
europa.eu79.34
Scores reflect what IndexBot could read from microsoft.com's available pages on .