instagram.com
No scorethe page couldn’t be read
instagram.com is ranked in the top 1,000 sites and was registered in 2004. We couldn’t read its page: its robots.txt asks bots like ours to stay away.
This site asks bots like ours not to read its pages, so we didn’t. What public records say is below; the score needs the page.
Popularity
Website Traffic CheckerAmong the top 1K sites.
A popularity band, not a visit count.
Top 1KTop 10KTop 100KTop 1MOutside top 1M
Tranco: #11 · Chrome UX Report: Top 1,000 · Majestic Million: #4
Each list, with its date
| Source | Says | As of |
|---|---|---|
| TrancoA research ranking that combines several traffic and link sources, published daily. | #11 | list of 7 Oct 2026 |
| Chrome UX ReportRank buckets from Google’s real Chrome traffic, published monthly. | Top 1,000 | Aug 2026 |
| Majestic MillionRanks sites by how many separate networks link to them (links, not visits), published daily. CC BY 3.0 | #4 | list of 8 Oct 2026 |
Technology
Tech Stack CheckerNo framework or CMS shows in the page; it uses Email, SEO, Business tools.
Everything else it uses (6)
Around it: Email, SEO, Business tools.
Microsoft 365EmailShow evidenceHide evidence
Evidence · DNS recordPopular sites using Microsoft 365 Is this wrong? Report itinstagram.com TXT ms=ms86975275
ProofpointEmailShow evidenceHide evidence
Evidence · DNS recordPopular sites using Proofpoint Is this wrong? Report itinstagram.com MX 20 mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com.
Google Search ConsoleSEOShow evidenceHide evidence
Evidence · DNS recordPopular sites using Google Search Console Is this wrong? Report itinstagram.com TXT google-site-verification=GGtId51KFyq0hqX2xNvt1u0P9Xp0C7k6pp9do49fCNw
Meta BusinessBusiness toolsShow evidenceHide evidence
Evidence · DNS recordPopular sites using Meta Business Is this wrong? Report itinstagram.com TXT facebook-domain-verification=hksvhmzcutq39t1kgpmlx11kt8314q
AdobeBusiness toolsShow evidenceHide evidence
Evidence · DNS recordPopular sites using Adobe Is this wrong? Report itinstagram.com TXT adobe-idp-site-verification=367fda82-a8bb-46cf-9cff-0062d452d229
SlackBusiness toolsShow evidenceHide evidence
Evidence · DNS recordPopular sites using Slack Is this wrong? Report itinstagram.com TXT slack-domain-verification=2Sz3t8oHDaRB4aVudl36MIwEdb1XSR751nZGiDFv
Business tools can stay listed after a site stops using them.
Trust signals
Website Trust CheckerWe couldn’t read the page; outside records are below.
Signals, not a judgement: missing details are common on small, honest sites.
- Domain registered4 Jun 2004, 22 years agoNoted
- HTTPSLoads over HTTPS with a valid certificateFound
- Security filterNot blocked by Cloudflare’s security filter and Quad9’s security filterNoted
Every signal we looked at
On the site
- Contact pageFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- About pageFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- Privacy policyFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- TermsFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- Refund or returns policyFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- Contact detailsFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- Company detailsFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- Payment providersFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- TrackersFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
Behind the site
- Security filterNot blocked by Cloudflare’s security filter and Quad9’s security filterNotedCloudflare’s security filter and Quad9’s security filter
- Domain registered4 Jun 2004, 22 years agoNoteddomain registry
- HTTPSLoads over HTTPS with a valid certificateFound
- Protective settingsFollowing the site’s robots.txt, we didn’t read the pageCouldn’t check
- Email protectionProtected against forged emailFoundDNS records
A second opinion on its security setup: Mozilla’s HTTP Observatory grades the site when you open it. Ten checks before you buy · A signal looks wrong? Report it
What it is
Website SummaryWe couldn’t read the page, so we can’t say what it is.
We couldn’t read the page, so there are no words of its own to quote.
We couldn’t read the page, so we can’t say what kind of site it is.
More about it: Wikidata, profiles, AI use, page facts
AI use
- All crawlers: asks every crawler without rules of its own to stay away, AI ones included.
- AI training: names Amazonbot, Applebot-Extended, Brightbot, ClaudeBot and 2 more with rules for some pages.
Show evidence (7)Hide evidence
Exhibit 1 · robots.txt, line 266
User-agent: Amazonbot
Exhibit 2 · robots.txt, line 277
User-agent: Applebot-Extended
Exhibit 3 · robots.txt, line 288
User-agent: Brightbot
Exhibit 4 · robots.txt, line 299
User-agent: ClaudeBot
Exhibit 5 · robots.txt, line 310
User-agent: Google-Extended
Exhibit 6 · robots.txt, line 321
User-agent: GPTBot
Exhibit 7 · robots.txt, line 343
Is this wrong? Report itUser-agent: * · Disallow: /
What its robots.txt and robots tags ask of AI crawlers. Each crawler chooses whether to follow it.
- Site name
- Not given
- Language
- Not given
- What it tells search engines
- None
Read from what the page says about itself; we haven’t checked whether it’s true.
Built with AI?
AI Website DetectorWe couldn’t read the page, so we couldn’t look for traces.
AI traces: Couldn’t check
How we know
AI site builders leave traces in the sites they make. We look for the traces of 53 of them and show every match with the line it came from, so you can check it yourself.
We test this on 2,312 sites whose makers we know, and publish what we get wrong.
How we test it · Every builder we know · How to tell if a site was built with AI
Score breakdown
Site ScoreNo score: we couldn’t read the page, and outside records alone would mislead.
Why each part scored what it did
Domain history
Domain HistoryRegistered in 2004; first archived in 2004.
- Domain registeredRDAP
- First captured by the web archiveInternet Archive
- First scanned by usCheckAnySite
- This scanCheckAnySite
In the web archive: captured in 19 of 23 years · see the first capture
- 2004: captured
- 2005: captured
- 2006: no capture
- 2007: no capture
- 2008: no capture
- 2009: no capture
- 2010: captured
- 2011: captured
- 2012: captured
- 2013: captured
- 2014: captured
- 2015: captured
- 2016: captured
- 2017: captured
- 2018: captured
- 2019: captured
- 2020: captured
- 2021: captured
- 2022: captured
- 2023: captured
- 2024: captured
- 2025: captured
- 2026: captured
No captures 2006–2009: the site may have been offline or parked then, or the archive didn’t visit.
Changes, earlier scans and alerts
- Since our previous scan
- No changes since 10 Oct 2026.
| Scanned | Score | AI traces | Popularity |
|---|---|---|---|
| shown above | — | None found | Top 1K |
| — | None found | Top 1K |
Findings can change when a site changes or when we update our signatures; each scan keeps the version it used.
How we scanned it
Only from what anyone can see: the site’s public pages and public records.
- Politely. Our scanner, CheckAnySiteBot, says who it is and follows the site’s robots.txt.
- With sources. Every fact above says where it came from and when.
- Without guessing. When we couldn’t check something, we say so.
This scan, in numbers
924 checks on 14 Oct 2026, with version 0.5.0 of our checks and version 1.1 of the score.
More sites near it in popularity
Automated findings from the site’s public home page and public records, as of 14 Oct 2026. They describe what we found, not the people or business behind the site, and they may be incomplete or out of date. This is information, not advice. Terms · Report an error
What this scan can’t tell you
- Whether the business is real, honest or delivers what it sells.
- Whether a site was made with AI when no traces were left: coding assistants and hand edits leave none.
- How many people visit: we show popularity bands from public lists, not visits.
- Anything beyond the home page as it was at the time of the scan.
Is this your site? Ask for a correction.