Follow the path to an important page

We begin with representative service, category, product and information pages. Can they be reached through links? Do they return the intended response? Is important content present after rendering? Do crawl controls and indexing instructions match the owner's intention?

This page-level investigation helps separate a genuine access problem from a warning that has little relevance to your site. Where access is available, Search Console evidence is compared with the site's current behaviour.

Understand templates, not just individual errors

One template decision can affect hundreds of URLs. We review canonical signals, redirects, internal links, sitemap entries and duplicated page variants together, so that a proposed correction does not contradict another part of the site.

For JavaScript-heavy sites, the brief includes content rendering and navigation behaviour. For shops, filters and pagination need attention. For smaller service sites, an accidentally excluded landing page may matter more than a long list of minor markup warnings.

  • Record a reproducible example and the affected template or URL group.
  • Identify dependencies before changing shared code or configuration.
  • Specify the expected behaviour and the checks required after release.

Assess speed in the context of use

A page can look fast on an office connection and still be awkward on a customer's mobile. We examine loading, responsiveness and layout movement alongside the actual task: reading service details, selecting a product or reaching contact information.

Laboratory tests help investigate causes; real-user data, where available, describes a different type of evidence. Neither a single performance score nor valid structured data is treated as a promise of search visibility.

Leave a workable implementation record

Findings are prioritised by likely consequence, affected pages, confidence and effort. Each accepted task has an implementation owner and an acceptance check. Work can be scoped around your existing developer or a separately agreed implementation brief.

Before changes, we identify what must be preserved and how to reverse a faulty release. Afterward, technical checks confirm behaviour; later search observations assess performance. Passing the first set does not establish the outcome of the second.

Common questions

Does an audit include fixing everything?

Not automatically. The proposal distinguishes investigation, implementation and verification, so you know which work is included and which needs your developer or a separate brief.

Should every tool warning be fixed?

No. Warnings need context. We prioritise issues affecting important pages or user journeys and explain why lower-impact items can wait.

Do I need a new website?

A technical problem alone is not a reason to rebuild. We first assess whether the existing platform can support a focused repair.