Bot traffic: austincribs.com

all sites · all domains · last 15 days

All sites · All Domains · Visit austincribs.com

Who is really visiting austincribs.com?

Between Oct 23 and Nov 6, austincribs.com received 35,268 requests. About 97% came from automated software and about 1.6% look like real people.

That works out to about 176 human visitors, roughly 12 a day, who opened 208 pages between them. 32 of them read more than one page.

The biggest source is scanners hunting for security holes. They try the same list of common weak spots on every site they find.

Bottom line: the hit counts on the All Domains worksheet are almost entirely bots. Use the human visitor figure here to judge this site's real audience.

97%of requests from bots
176human visitors (estimate)
208pages opened by people
35,268total requests, 15 days

Where the requests came from

People 1.6%Named bots 12%Disguised bots 13%Scanners 73%Unclear 1.0%

Requests per day

PeopleNamed botsDisguised botsScannersUnclear
01,2502,5003,7505,000Oct 23Oct 25Oct 27Oct 29Oct 31Nov 2Nov 4Nov 6

Human visitors per day

Same days, people only, on their own scale so they are visible.

07142128Oct 23Oct 25Oct 27Oct 29Oct 31Nov 2Nov 4Nov 6

The breakdown

SourceRequestsΣ 35,268ShareData sentBlockedby the serverWhat this means
Break-in scanners22,29763%22 MB13,057Probing for WordPress logins, password files and other common weak spots.
Scanners posing as browsers3,4069.7%10 MB21Other requests from an address also caught probing for weak spots.
Disguised scrapers3,2129.1%26 MB0Claims to be a normal browser but only downloads pages, never the images or icons a real browser fetches, reads many pages without ever clicking a link, or runs from a cloud provider.
Other named bots1,5294.3%19 MB25Any other software that identifies itself as a bot.
Search engines1,3533.8%9 MB7Crawlers that say who they are, such as Google, Bing, Apple and Amazon. Usually welcome: this is how people find the site.
Scripts and tools1,1033.1%5 MB4Programs such as curl or Python, or anything with an unrecognizable name.
AI crawlers9912.8%3 MB70AI companies gathering pages or answering a user's question, and saying so.
Likely people5061.4%28 MB0Opened a page and also fetched its images or icons, at a human pace, from a non-cloud address.
SEO and marketing tools3751.1%1 MB146Commercial tools that sell data about websites.
Unclear3471.0%6 MB0Browser name, but fetched only an image or data file and no page. Could be either.
Automated browsers960.3%<1 MB0Loads images like a browser, but too fast for a person or with a faked browser name.
Possibly people510.1%<1 MB0Read 1 to 3 pages, arrived from a search engine or social link, no icons fetched. Referrers can be faked, so treat these as maybe.
No name given20.0%<1 MB0Requests that give no software name at all.

Named bots

Botas it names itselfTypeRequests
PetalBotSearch engines617
QlyzeBotOther named bots294
Amzn-SearchBotSearch engines208
GooglebotSearch engines199
OAI-SearchBotAI crawlers198
ibou-searchOther named bots146
SemrushBotSEO and marketing tools145
ClaudeBotAI crawlers135
SERankingBacklinksBotSEO and marketing tools114
pathscanOther named bots99
ChatGPT-UserAI crawlers96
GPTBotAI crawlers90
bingbotSearch engines85
BarkrowlerSEO and marketing tools77
ApplebotSearch engines73

What people opened

Pages opened by at least two different human visitors.

PageHuman visitors
/88
/news/2026-06-07-austin-housing-affordability-plan-making-moves.html7
/sources/4
/about/3
/sitemap/3
/news/2026-05-04-texas-record-million-dollar-home-sales-austin-luxury.html2
/news/2026-05-02-austin-central-texas-home-sales-steady-momentum.html2
/news/2026-06-11-austin-lakefront-luxury-homes-shattering-price-records.html2
/news/evergreen-most-expensive-austin-neighborhoods.html2
/news/2026-05-14-austin-home-sales-market-slows-down-buyers-opportunity.html2
/research/2
/homestead-exemption/2

How people arrived

Referring siteHuman visitors
m.baidu.com19
www.google.com6
austinhangout.com3
01beees.blogspot.com2
austintweet.com2
claudefieldguide.com1

Where disguised bots operate from

Address blocks, not individual addresses. A heavily used block with many addresses suggests one operator rotating through them.

Address blockRequestsAddresses used
158.69.0.0/163222
192.42.0.0/1618946
104.164.0.0/1612114
93.123.0.0/16961
148.135.0.0/16732
5.102.0.0/16653
185.220.0.0/166216
47.82.0.0/165959

Day by day

DayHuman visitorsHuman pagesNamed botsrequestsDisguisedrequestsScannersrequestsUnclearrequestsAllrequestsBot share
Oct 239106162061,299212,17498%
Oct 248101232674331485896%
Oct 252323245167746211,23794%
Oct 2678299299785151,41997%
Oct 2713151713004,412204,93399%
Oct 2817183011761,328331,91095%
Oct 298101832073,556153,97599.3%
Oct 3024241491682,995403,44396%
Oct 311115170166717191,09996%
Nov 125316741,4902,251234,50898%
Nov 211112202412,176182,68798%
Nov 310132002091,615442,11496%
Nov 4572782081,507182,02498%
Nov 5453062131,300191,84898%
Nov 67831396583271,03995%

How this was measured

Every request in the server log was sorted by what it did, not only what it claimed to be. Bots that name themselves are counted as named. Anything claiming to be a browser had to act like one: open a page, fetch its images or icons, move at human speed, and come from outside the big cloud providers. These are estimates. A careful bot can pass the test, and a person with images blocked or a cached icon can fail it, so read the human figures as a good approximation, not an exact count. One person using two devices counts as two visitors. Google Analytics-style tools would show different numbers because most bots never run their script. Logs are kept for 15 days.

Built 2026-11-06 22:42 UTC from 15 log files.