Overview
JavaScript leads Civil Engineering's secondary barrier stack above the norm
| Value | |
|---|---|
| WAF | 89% |
| Antibot | 13% |
| CAPTCHA | 22% |
| JavaScript | 38% |
| Rate Limiting | 19% |
| TLS | 14% |
WAF at 89% is the dominant barrier. JavaScript (38%) leads secondary coverage. The remaining barriers sit materially lower, giving Civil Engineering a narrow but defined secondary layer.
Barrier Landscape
WAF leads Civil Engineering at 89% — JavaScript is the main secondary layer
| Value | |
|---|---|
| WAF | 89% |
| Antibot | 13% |
| CAPTCHA | 22% |
| JavaScript | 38% |
| Rate Limiting | 19% |
| TLS | 14% |
| Has robots.txt | 60% |
| Blocks AI crawlers | 5% |
WAF dominates at 89%. JavaScript (38%) leads active secondary barriers, followed by CAPTCHA (22%). The remaining three barriers all sit at or below 19% — a concentrated rather than broadly stacked profile.
Civil Engineering's barrier counts are spread — no single configuration dominates
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 0 barriers | 10% |
| 1 barrier | 36% |
| 2 barriers | 26% |
| 3 barriers | 12% |
| 4 barriers | 10% |
| 5 barriers | 5% |
| 6 barriers | 1% |
Barrier counts vary widely across Civil Engineering sites. Single-barrier configurations are the modal count at 36%, but the distribution is broad. 28% of sites carry three or more.
Civil Engineering sites are predominantly Simple to access
| Mean recommended tier | |
|---|---|
| All sites | 1.23 |
A mean recommended tier of 1.23 and a median of Simple place Civil Engineering among the most accessible sectors surveyed. 82% of sites are Simple to access; 4% require Moderate or above.
Simple tier covers more than three-quarters of Civil Engineering sites
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 1 - Simple | 82% |
| 2 - Easy | 14% |
| 3 - Moderate | 3% |
| 4 - Complex | 1% |
| 5 - Advanced | 0% |
Simple (82%) is the most common tier. Simple and Easy together account for 96% of sites, while 3% land at Moderate and 1% at Complex or Advanced.
robots.txt
Nearly two-thirds of Civil Engineering sites publish any robots.txt
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| Publish a valid robots.txt | 60% |
Only 60% of Civil Engineering sites have a valid robots.txt. Nearly 40% leave crawl policy undefined — one of the lower coverage rates across surveyed sectors.
More than half of Civil Engineering sites name no bot agents in robots.txt
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 0 | 53% |
| 1 | 34% |
| 2–4 | 7% |
| 5–9 | 4% |
| 10–15 | 0% |
| 16+ | 2% |
53% of Civil Engineering sites name zero bot agents; 34% name exactly one. A mean of 1.6 named agents and median of 0 reflect minimal engagement with named bot policy across the sector.
SEO audit tools draw the most robots.txt attention in Civil Engineering
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| AI crawlers | 5% |
| SEO / search indexing | 4% |
| SEO audit tools | 6% |
| Commercial scrapers | 3% |
| Social / content scrapers | 2% |
| Archive / research crawlers | 1% |
| Monitoring / uptime bots | 0% |
SEO audit tools are named in 6% of Civil Engineering robots.txt files, followed by AI crawlers at 5%. All figures are percentages of all 100 sites including those with no robots.txt.
Uniform per-agent rules dominate Civil Engineering robots.txt files
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| Uniform per-agent rules | 34% |
| Path-level mixed rules | 23% |
| Allow-only (no Disallow rules) | 2% |
| Mixed AI posture | 0% |
| Blanket Disallow: / | 1% |
Uniform per-agent rules lead at 34%, with path-level mixed rules at 23%. Mixed AI posture (0%) and blanket Disallow (1%) are minimal.
AI crawlers are among the most-targeted agents in Civil Engineering robots.txt
| Disallowed | Allowed (whitelisted) | |
|---|---|---|
| * | 43% | 27% |
| GPTBot | 4% | — |
| Googlebot | 3% | 1% |
| Applebot | 2% | 2% |
| SemrushBot | 3% | — |
| Google-Extended | 3% | — |
| Twitterbot | 1% | 2% |
| facebookexternalhit | 1% | 2% |
| AhrefsBot | 3% | — |
| CCBot | 3% | — |
| PetalBot | 3% | — |
| AdsBot-Google | 2% | — |
| Bingbot | 1% | 1% |
| Slurp | 1% | 1% |
| msnbot | 1% | 1% |
| Amazonbot | 2% | — |
| ClaudeBot | 2% | — |
| DotBot | 2% | — |
| MJ12bot | 2% | — |
| serpstatbot | 2% | — |
| bingbot | 1% | — |
| AI2Bot | 1% | — |
| AI2Bot-Dolma | 1% | — |
| AppleBot-Extended | 1% | — |
| AspiegelBot | 1% | — |
Values are percentages of all 100 Civil Engineering sites surveyed. The wildcard (*) leads at 43% Disallow. Among named agents, GPTBot lead the Disallow list — reflecting direct targeting of AI training and indexing bots.
Industry Cohort
Civil Engineering sits mid-table within the Manufacturing & Logistics cohort
| WAF | Antibot | CAPTCHA | JavaScript | Rate Limit | TLS | robots.txt | Blocks AI | Tier | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aerospace & Defense | 87% | 17% | 26% | 36% | 21% | 15% | 67% | 6% | Tier 1 |
| Chemicals | 83% | 8% | 19% | 31% | 7% | 8% | 71% | 8% | Tier 1 |
| Civil Engineering | 89% | 13% | 22% | 38% | 19% | 14% | 60% | 5% | Tier 1 |
| Import & Export | 93% | 19% | 17% | 35% | 17% | 13% | 69% | 6% | Tier 1 |
| Machinery | 91% | 13% | 17% | 49% | 20% | 15% | 80% | 10% | Tier 2 |
| Mail & Package Delivery | 91% | 15% | 19% | 37% | 17% | 15% | 70% | 3% | Tier 1 |
| Manufacturing | 92% | 20% | 19% | 45% | 24% | 18% | 75% | 9% | Tier 2 |
| Maritime | 87% | 22% | 24% | 41% | 19% | 12% | 62% | 8% | Tier 1 |
| Metals & Mining | 87% | 26% | 30% | 39% | 25% | 16% | 72% | 4% | Tier 1 |
| Plastics & Polymers | 98% | 10% | 29% | 34% | 13% | 10% | 80% | 4% | Tier 1 |
| Transportation & Logistics | 78% | 15% | 16% | 35% | 17% | 18% | 67% | 2% | Tier 1 |
| Warehousing | 98% | 18% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 8% | 75% | 4% | Tier 1 |
Across Manufacturing & Logistics, Civil Engineering's barrier rates are broadly in line with peers. WAF at 89%, JavaScript at 38%, and AI blocking at 5% all sit near the cohort median. Tier difficulty (mean 1.21) is below the group average.