who.int
Ranked #116 of 300 on the Leaderboard. Analyzed .
Index Quotient
75.08
Technical Health
91.45Whether search engines can fetch, trust, and quickly load the site.
Strengths
- CrawlabilityStrong
Crawlers are welcome here: a sitemap points the way, links work, and pages are allowed into the index.
- URL and canonical hygieneStrong
URLs are clean and consistent, each page has one address, and missing pages say so.
- Secure connectionStrong
Every visit is encrypted, and the headers that keep it that way are in place.
Opportunities
- SpeedPartial
Pages load reasonably but not quickly, so visitors wait longer than they need to.
Content Quality
60.76Whether pages say clearly what they are about, in a form machines can read.
Strengths
- LanguageStrong
The page language is declared and matches what is on the page.
Opportunities
- Depth and readabilityPartial
Pages have substance, but many stop short, drift from their titles, or read harder than they need to.
- Titles and descriptionsPartial
Titles are mostly in place; descriptions and link previews are patchier, and each page wants ones of its own.
- Images and linksPartial
Pages link to one another, though some images lack a description and some link text says "read more" rather than where it leads.
Answer Readiness
57.39Whether content is shaped and marked up so an engine can lift a direct answer.
Strengths
- Structured dataStrong
Pages carry structured data of the kinds engines use, filled in properly, and the site says its own name in it.
Opportunities
- Question-and-answer shapeWeak
Few pages are shaped as questions and answers, so there is little for an answer engine to lift as a direct answer.
- Scannable formattingWeak
Pages read as unbroken prose: few lists or tables, and openings that take a while to get to the point.
- Navigation aidsPartial
Some interior pages show where they sit in the site; the rest would benefit from the same trail.
AI Visibility
72.72Whether 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.
Opportunities
- Readable without JavaScriptPartial
Most content is readable without running scripts, but some pages arrive thin, or the content is not clearly marked out from the furniture around it.
- 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.
- 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
93.07Whether 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 here to work on. The points left are the ones only the web's largest sites earn.
Nearby on the Leaderboard
- #115
unsw.edu.au75.10
- #116
who.int75.08
- #117
github.com74.99
Scores reflect what IndexBot could read from who.int's available pages on .