City websites: botability rankings

Project ScanGov botability rankings for U.S. city government websites, with the most common failures.

  • Sites: 267
  • Last scan: 10/9/2026

C 76

Average botability score of 215 fully scanned city sites

215 of 267

City sites fully scanned. We couldn't fully scan 52, so they're listed without grades

20%

Fully scanned city sites earning an A for botability (43 sites)

27%

Fully scanned city sites earning a D or F for botability (59 sites)

How U.S. city botability scores are distributed

Smoothed distribution of the 215 fully scanned U.S. city sites, score 0 to 100. Height shows how many sites score near each value.

  • Average
View the data table
Score rangeSites
0 to 90
10 to 190
20 to 290
30 to 390
40 to 490
50 to 5910
60 to 6949
70 to 7936
80 to 8977
90 to 10043

City sites by botability grade

One dot per city site, colored by its botability grade. Select a dot to open that site's report. The table lists every site.

City of San Jose, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Olathe, KS: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Kent, WA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Montgomery, AL: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of New Haven, CT: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Laredo, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Broken Arrow, OK: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Hillsboro, OR: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Lancaster, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Glendale, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Fort Lauderdale, FL: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Bend, OR: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of El Lago, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Boston, MA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Vallejo, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Olympia, WA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 998) City of Paterson, NJ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 997) City of Allentown, PA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 994) City of Bellaire, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 408) City of Chattanooga, TN: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Brownsville, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 994) City of Richardson, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Santa Clara, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Los Angeles, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Chicago, IL: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Kansas City, MO: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Katy, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Buckeye, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) Jefferson County, KY: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Carlsbad, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of El Cajon, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Springfield, MO: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Pearland, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Orange, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Jackson, MS: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Las Cruces, NM: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Fremont, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Fullerton, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Stamford, CT: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Chula Vista, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Henderson, NV: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Goodyear, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Fishers, IN: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Raleigh, NC: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Greensboro, NC: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of New Bedford, MA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Tempe, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Pomona, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Fremont, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Yuma, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Carrollton, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Detroit, MI: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Toledo, OH: grade B, botability score 88 City of Baton Rouge, LA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Virginia Beach, VA: grade B, botability score 80 City of Moreno Valley, CA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Tampa, FL: grade A, botability score 90 City of Rochester, MN: grade A, botability score 90 City of Thornton, CO: grade B, botability score 81 City of Fort Worth, TX: grade A, botability score 90 City of Sacramento, CA: grade B, botability score 80 City of Pittsburgh, PA: grade A, botability score 90 City of New Orleans, LA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Renton, WA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Minneapolis, MN: grade A, botability score 90 City of Columbus, OH: grade A, botability score 90 City of Portland, OR: grade C, botability score 72 City of Huntsville, AL: grade B, botability score 81 City of Sioux Falls, SD: grade A, botability score 90 City of Columbia, MO: grade A, botability score 100 City of Chandler, AZ: grade B, botability score 81 City of Helena, MT: grade A, botability score 90 City of Round Rock, TX: grade C, botability score 72 City of San Antonio, TX: grade A, botability score 90 City of Albuquerque, NM: grade C, botability score 72 City of South Bend, IN: grade A, botability score 90 City of Wilmington, NC: grade A, botability score 90 City of Corona, CA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Burbank, CA: grade A, botability score 90 City of College Station, TX: grade D, botability score 66 City of Syracuse, NY: grade A, botability score 90 City of Gainesville, FL: grade A, botability score 90 City of Miami, FL: grade A, botability score 90 City of Waco, TX: grade A, botability score 90 Village of Indian Hill, OH: grade A, botability score 90 City of Orlando, FL: grade A, botability score 90 City of Tacoma, WA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Joliet, IL: grade B, botability score 88 City of Cleveland, OH: grade C, botability score 72 City of Saint Paul, MN: grade C, botability score 72 City of Pompano Beach, FL: grade B, botability score 81 City of Arlington, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Quincy, MA: grade B, botability score 87 City of Corpus Christi, TX: grade A, botability score 90 City of Ontario, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Scottsdale, AZ: grade D, botability score 63 City of Grand Rapids, MI: grade B, botability score 81 City of Norman, OK: grade A, botability score 90 City of Alexandria, VA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Santa Clarita, CA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Memphis, TN: grade A, botability score 90 City of Vancouver, WA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Charleston, SC: grade D, botability score 63 City of Phoenix, AZ: grade B, botability score 81 City of Bridgeport, CT: grade A, botability score 90 City of Tucson, AZ: grade A, botability score 90 City of Miramar, FL: grade A, botability score 90 City of Amarillo, TX: grade A, botability score 100 City of Providence, RI: grade B, botability score 81 City of Allen, TX: grade B, botability score 87 City of Charlotte, NC: grade A, botability score 90 City of Huntington Beach, CA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Victorville, CA: grade A, botability score 90 City of Oakland, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Boulder, CO: grade B, botability score 81 City of Fresno, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Birmingham, AL: grade C, botability score 72 City of Jacksonville, FL: grade A, botability score 90 City of Fayetteville, NC: grade A, botability score 90 City of Independence, MO: grade B, botability score 81 City of Gresham, OR: grade D, botability score 63 City of Sandy Springs, GA: grade B, botability score 80 City of Knoxville, TN: grade C, botability score 72 City of Lansing, MI: grade C, botability score 72 City of Madison, WI: grade F, botability score 54 City of Reno, NV: grade C, botability score 75 City of Hedwig Village, TX: grade C, botability score 72 City of Berkeley, CA: grade C, botability score 70 City of San Diego, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Austin, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Conroe, TX: grade B, botability score 87 City of Cape Coral, FL: grade B, botability score 80 City of Stockton, CA: grade C, botability score 75 City of Newport News, VA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Temecula, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Piney Point Village, TX: grade B, botability score 87 City of Cambridge, MA: grade F, botability score 54 City of Albany, NY: grade B, botability score 81 City of Seattle, WA: grade D, botability score 63 City of North Charleston, SC: grade C, botability score 75 City of Jacinto City, TX: grade A, botability score 90 City of Jefferson City, MO: grade C, botability score 75 City of Boise, ID: grade B, botability score 81 City of Jefferson City, MO: grade C, botability score 75 City of Hialeah, FL: grade B, botability score 81 City of Plano, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Buffalo, NY: grade B, botability score 81 City of Fayetteville, AR: grade D, botability score 63 City of Chandler, AZ: grade C, botability score 72 City of Hunters Creek Village, TX: grade A, botability score 90 City of Colorado Springs, CO: grade C, botability score 70 City of Fontana, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of El Monte, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Murfreesboro, TN: grade B, botability score 81 City of Concord, NC: grade B, botability score 81 City of West University Place, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Piedmont, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Arvada, CO: grade D, botability score 63 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Cincinnati, OH: grade D, botability score 63 City of Houston, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Wichita, KS: grade B, botability score 81 City of Elgin, IL: grade B, botability score 81 City of South Fulton, GA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Augusta, GA: grade B, botability score 81 City of South Houston, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Murrieta, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Friendswood, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Green Bay, WI: grade D, botability score 63 City of Knoxville, TN: grade D, botability score 63 City of Humble, TX: grade C, botability score 72 City of Manchester, NH: grade B, botability score 81 City of Midland, TX: grade F, botability score 54 City of Bakersfield, CA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Columbia, SC: grade C, botability score 70 City of Abilene, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Frisco, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Eugene, OR: grade D, botability score 63 City of Peoria, IL: grade D, botability score 63 City of League City, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Waller, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Bellevue, WA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Hilshire Village, TX: grade C, botability score 75 City of Killeen, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Sugar Land, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Rio Rancho, NM: grade B, botability score 81 City of Garland, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Savannah, GA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Irving, TX: grade B, botability score 80 City of Norfolk, VA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Yonkers, NY: grade B, botability score 81 City of Concord, NH: grade C, botability score 72 City of Dayton, OH: grade C, botability score 72 City of Durham, NC: grade B, botability score 81 City of Nassau Bay, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Grand Rapids, MI: grade D, botability score 63 City of Santa Fe, NM: grade B, botability score 81 City of Richmond, VA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Rialto, CA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Miami Gardens, FL: grade B, botability score 81 City of Houston, TX: grade D, botability score 66 City of Nampa, ID: grade C, botability score 72 City of Escondido, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Grand Rapids, MI: grade B, botability score 81 City of Shreveport, LA: grade B, botability score 81 City of High Point, NC: grade D, botability score 63 City of Beaumont, TX: grade F, botability score 54 City of San Bernardino, CA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Chesapeake, VA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Annapolis, MD: grade D, botability score 63 City of Wichita Falls, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Long Beach, CA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Palmdale, CA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Deer Park, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Modesto, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Bismarck, ND: grade B, botability score 81 City of Fargo, ND: grade D, botability score 66 City of Stafford, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Clarksville, TN: grade B, botability score 81 City of Santa Rosa, CA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Rockford, IL: grade C, botability score 72 City of Billings, MT: grade B, botability score 81 City of Antioch, CA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Galena Park, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Springfield, MA: grade F, botability score 54 City of Everett, WA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Spring Valley Village, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Harrisburg, PA: grade F, botability score 55 City of Dearborn, MI: grade C, botability score 72 City of Pasadena, TX: grade B, botability score 81 City of Lowell, MA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Richmond, CA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Spokane, WA: grade B, botability score 87 City of Sterling Heights, MI: grade F, botability score 54 City of Billings, MT: grade D, botability score 63 Marion County, IN: grade F, botability score 54 City of Lynn, MA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Jersey City, NJ: grade C, botability score 72 City of Odessa, TX: grade F, botability score 54 City of Anaheim, CA: grade B, botability score 81 City of Denton, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of San Mateo, CA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Spokane Valley, WA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Hampton, VA: grade D, botability score 63 City of Baytown, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Seabrook, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Akron, OH: grade B, botability score 87 City of New Braunfels, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Houston, TX: grade D, botability score 63 City of Concord, NC: grade C, botability score 72 City of Las Vegas, NV: grade C, botability score 72 City of Tulsa, OK: grade D, botability score 63 City of Charleston, WV: grade D, botability score 63 City of Baton Rouge, LA: grade F, botability score 54 City of Thousand Oaks, CA: grade C, botability score 72 City of Augusta, ME: grade D, botability score 63
  • A (90 to 100)
  • B to C (70 to 89)
  • D to F (below 70)
  • Not fully scanned

11 city sites have no map location yet and appear only in the table.

U.S. city sites by botability grade

Share of the 215 fully scanned U.S. city sites in each grade band

  1. All U.S. city sites
  • A (90 to 100)
  • B to C (70 to 89)
  • D to F (below 70)
View the data table
GroupA (90 to 100)B to C (70 to 89)D to F (below 70)
All U.S. city sites20% (43)53% (113)27% (59)

Most common botability failures among U.S. city sites

Share of the 215 fully scanned U.S. city sites failing each check. A site can fail more than one check. Each check links to its standard and how to fix it.

  1. GovernmentOrganization Schema.org type96%
  2. Robots valid40%
  3. Sitemap status29%
  4. Sitemap XML29%
  5. Link text27%
View the data table
CheckShare failingSites failing
GovernmentOrganization Schema.org type96%207
Robots valid40%86
Sitemap status29%62
Sitemap XML29%62
Link text27%59

What each check means

  • GovernmentOrganization Schema.org type. Homepage is marked up as an official government organization. Systems cannot verify you are an official government site.
  • Robots valid. The site's robots.txt file is written correctly so search engines can follow it. Search engines ignore crawling rules they cannot read.
  • Sitemap status. The sitemap file loads and returns a successful response. Search engines cannot find all your pages.
  • Sitemap XML. The sitemap file uses the required XML format. Search engines cannot read your sitemap.
  • Link text. Links use descriptive text that tells users and search engines where they go. Users cannot tell where links go.

All city sites by botability score

Rank Site Checks passed Grade
1 amarillo.gov
City of Amarillo, TX 		10 of 10 checks pass A
1 como.gov
City of Columbia, MO 		11 of 11 checks pass A
2 cityofvancouver.us
City of Vancouver, WA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 stgeorgela.gov
City of Baton Rouge, LA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 morganspoint-tx.com
City of Morgan’s Point, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 cityofhunterscreek.com
City of Hunters Creek Village, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 nola.gov
City of New Orleans, LA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 helenamt.gov
City of Helena, MT 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 rentonwa.gov
City of Renton, WA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 moval.gov
City of Moreno Valley, CA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 shoreacrestx.us
City of Shoreacres, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 tampa.gov
City of Tampa, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 minneapolismn.gov
City of Minneapolis, MN 		9 of 10 checks pass A
2 columbus.gov
City of Columbus, OH 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 charlottenc.gov
City of Charlotte, NC 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 sa.gov
City of San Antonio, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 southbendin.gov
City of South Bend, IN 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 fortworthtexas.gov
City of Fort Worth, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 gainesvillefl.gov
City of Gainesville, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 jacintocity-tx.gov
City of Jacinto City, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 normanok.gov
City of Norman, OK 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 coralsprings.gov
City of CORAL SPRINGS, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 bridgeportct.gov
City of Bridgeport, CT 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 tucsonaz.gov
City of Tucson, AZ 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 miami.gov
City of Miami, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 waco-texas.com
City of Waco, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 indianhill.gov
Village of Indian Hill, OH 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 miramarfl.gov
City of Miramar, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 pittsburghpa.gov
City of Pittsburgh, PA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 siouxfalls.gov
City of Sioux Falls, SD 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 orlando.gov
City of Orlando, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 jacksonville.gov
City of Jacksonville, FL 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 huntingtonbeachca.gov
City of Huntington Beach, CA 		9 of 10 checks pass A
2 corpuschristitx.gov
City of Corpus Christi, TX 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 santaclarita.gov
City of Santa Clarita, CA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 memphistn.gov
City of Memphis, TN 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 rochestermn.gov
City of Rochester, MN 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 fayettevillenc.gov
City of Fayetteville, NC 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 wilmingtonnc.gov
City of Wilmington, NC 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 victorvilleca.gov
City of Victorville, CA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 coronaca.gov
City of Corona, CA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 burbankca.gov
City of Burbank, CA 		10 of 11 checks pass A
2 syr.gov
City of Syracuse, NY 		10 of 11 checks pass A
3 joliet.gov
City of Joliet, IL 		8 of 9 checks pass B
3 toledo.oh.gov
City of Toledo, OH 		8 of 9 checks pass B
4 spokane.gov
City of Spokane, WA 		7 of 8 checks pass B
4 cityofpineypoint.com
City of Piney Point Village, TX 		7 of 8 checks pass B
4 allentx.gov
City of Allen, TX 		7 of 8 checks pass B
4 cityofconroe.org
City of Conroe, TX 		7 of 8 checks pass B
4 quincyma.gov
City of Quincy, MA 		7 of 8 checks pass B
4 akronohio.gov
City of Akron, OH 		7 of 8 checks pass B
5 oaklandca.gov
City of Oakland, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 cityofrc.us
City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 thorntonco.gov
City of Thornton, CO 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 chandleraz.gov
City of Chandler, AZ 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 phoenix.gov
City of Phoenix, AZ 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 harriscountytx.gov
City of Harris County, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 independencemo.gov
City of Independence, MO 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 bellevuewa.gov
City of Bellevue, WA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 bouldercolorado.gov
City of Boulder, CO 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 fresno.gov
City of Fresno, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 sandiego.gov
City of San Diego, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 huntsvilleal.gov
City of Huntsville, AL 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 pompanobeachfl.gov
City of Pompano Beach, FL 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 grandrapidsmi.gov
City of Grand Rapids, MI 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 arlingtontx.gov
City of Arlington, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 manchesternh.gov
City of Manchester, NH 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 ggcity.org
City of GARDEN GROVE, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 austintexas.gov
City of Austin, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 santafenm.gov
City of Santa Fe, NM 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 cityofboise.org
City of Boise, ID 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 bunkerhilltx.gov
City of Houston, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 sugarlandtx.gov
City of Sugar Land, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 cityofnormandy.gov
City of St. Louis, MO 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 tacoma.gov
City of Tacoma, WA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 modestogov.com
City of Modesto, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 fontanaca.gov
City of Fontana, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 elmonteca.gov
City of El Monte, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 ontarioca.gov
City of Ontario, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 anaheim.net
City of Anaheim, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 rrnm.gov
City of Rio Rancho, NM 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 miamigardens-fl.gov
City of Miami Gardens, FL 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 garlandtx.gov
City of Garland, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 albanyny.gov
City of Albany, NY 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 springvalleytx.com
City of Spring Valley Village, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 murfreesborotn.gov
City of Murfreesboro, TN 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 wichita.gov
City of Wichita, KS 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 abilenetx.gov
City of Abilene, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 elginil.gov
City of Elgin, IL 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 savannahga.gov
City of Savannah, GA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 bismarcknd.gov
City of Bismarck, ND 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 hialeahfl.gov
City of Hialeah, FL 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 nnva.gov
City of Newport News, VA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 escondido.gov
City of Escondido, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 plano.gov
City of Plano, TX 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 yonkersny.gov
City of Yonkers, NY 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 cityofsouthfultonga.gov
City of South Fulton, GA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 concordnc.gov
City of Concord, NC 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 temeculaca.gov
City of Temecula, CA 		9 of 11 checks pass B
5 providenceri.gov
City of Providence, RI 		9 of 11 checks pass B

Page 1 of 3

About this data

ScanGov scans the homepage of the main website of each city on our city list. Scores come from the checks listed on standards.scangov.org. Sites were scanned between 7/21/2026 and 10/2/2026; each site's report shows its own scan date. A site counts as fully scanned when its homepage returned successfully and sent the scanner its page content. Averages, grade shares, failure rates, and ranks use fully scanned sites only. We weren't able to fully scan 52 sites because they did not respond, blocked the scanner, or returned no page content. They appear in the table without grades, each with its scan status, and are left out of every figure. Grades follow the ScanGov grade scale, and rank follows the ScanGov ranking method. The full dataset, including every county's raw results, is published in the ScanGov data repository.