I have downloaded installed and tested (on windows 7).

The interface is a little old-fashioned but fairly intuitive to use.

The crawl seemed quick enough - I tested locally on a 101 page website and it was less than a minute.

The view 'site inspector' screen gives a usable list of the info about each page.

However the tool doesn't give any recommendations about the data, such as meta descriptions being too long, or the over or under use of heading tags.

The onscreen 'view' and the 'report' are different and have different information. The view does not list heading tags text but the report does. Also the view lists all items including images, css , js etc, but the report only lists actual pages


The 'view' showed some URLs as having 'warnings' / 'errors' but to see what they are you have to click on the row and then click on a button in the right panel.

The way the heading tags are listed in the report is not very useful as each heading tag creates a new row in the report for the same page.

To get a unique row for each URL, you have to choose to omit the head tag and head text from the report.

It is very useful to be able to choose which rows to include when you create the report.

There are some nice features in the crawler 'options' including being able to include / exclude specific URLs to crawl specified by wildcard. There is also an option to only include specific http response codes - e.g. 200

For me the tool may be useful to get a quick listing of the tags / heading text etc, but I would in general prefer to use other tools which have more indepth reporting including SEO recommendations.

My question is why would anyone want to know all of the sub pages, there is a site map on almost all web sites, furthermore, there are web sites with thousands of sub web pages and when you list them, no useful info is displayed but URL time outs, URL user agents and so forth and more useless info like Links, Types and HTML status.

Thanks for this useful tool, GOTD! It's a great starting point for repairing an old website like mine, especially for an amateur webmaster with intermediate skills who's still using outdated web publishing software (yep, Frontpage - be kind, guys!), and keeping his life basic. Many Thanks!

I remember using tools like this one in the early days of static-web site building. Wow, I'm getting old since that happened some 20 years ago. Anyhow, then appeared dynamic web sites and those tools became almost useless. But, in the rare case you need one, will you pay 50 bucks? No way. Nowadays there are lots of free similar (unnecessary) tools for that purpose. I'll pass.

I dunno, but I reckon there must be about 20,000 housewives around Stoke-on-Trent who are just dying to check dozens and dozens of websites, including some they have never even heard of -- yet.

Yeah, bound to be popular with the masses... but for me, I'll pass.

Seriously, I really wonder just how many GOTD'ers would find such a thing useful. Even though I have a website, I doubt I could use such a programme. I fancy the steep learning curve would make it largely unapproachable....

All this of course says nothing about how good, or otherwise, is the actual programme. It may be great -- for some.

I just can't see it breaking GOTD's records for downloads....

Isn't there something more useful to the average user that GOTD could offer?

Still, keep up the good work -- I agree, one can't expect wonders every day....

Could not scan my site and found only the startsite.
The sitemap is a fancy