Technical SEO audit

What a technical audit actually finds

Almost every site we crawl has the same shape of problem. A few hundred pages that should never have been indexed are competing with the ones that should. A template renders its main content in JavaScript that the crawler times out on. Redirects from a migration three years ago chain four deep. Nothing here is exotic, and none of it shows up in a rankings report — it shows up as pages that quietly never earn traffic.

We crawl the site the way a search engine does, rendering each page rather than reading its source, then cross-read the result against index coverage and analytics. That cross-read is the part that matters: a crawl on its own produces four thousand warnings, and the job is deciding which forty are costing you money.

• Pages that return the wrong status, or the right status with the wrong content
• Templates whose main content never reaches the crawler
• Duplicate and near-duplicate pages competing for the same phrase
• Redirect chains, loops, and links pointing at old URLs
• Core Web Vitals measured per template on a throttled mobile profile
• Structured data that is present, malformed, and therefore ignored

What you do with the report

The deliverable is ordered by traffic at risk, not by severity label, because a critical issue on a page nobody visits is not critical. Each finding names the pages affected, what is wrong in one sentence, and what implementing the fix involves — enough that a developer can estimate it without a meeting.

In the largest size we implement rather than describe. That suits teams without a developer to hand, and teams whose developer has a backlog longer than the audit.