Crawl, render and indexation.
Robots directives, canonicals, redirects, status codes, sitemaps, duplicate URLs, rendering and indexation patterns.
An SEO audit should tell you what is wrong, why it matters and what to do first. Not hand you 200 crawler warnings with every issue marked urgent.
We investigate technical SEO, indexation, content, search intent, internal links, architecture, authority and search performance, then turn the findings into a prioritised plan.
Organic performance can be limited by one large technical problem, hundreds of weak pages, unclear search targeting, poor internal architecture, insufficient authority or a mix of smaller issues.
The audit follows the evidence. A small service website and a catalogue with hundreds of thousands of URLs should not receive the same checklist.
Robots directives, canonicals, redirects, status codes, sitemaps, duplicate URLs, rendering and indexation patterns.
Search targeting, page type, titles, headings, content quality, internal links, cannibalisation and conversion context.
Navigation, hierarchy, crawl depth, orphan pages, internal authority and relationships between important sections.
Referring domains, link gaps, strong pages, suspicious patterns and whether authority is reaching the URLs that matter.
A single canonical, navigation or parameter mistake can affect thousands of pages. We look for patterns instead of treating each affected URL as a separate task.
Where access is available, crawler data can be combined with Google Search Console, analytics, CMS information and server evidence to understand what search engines are actually seeing.
We compare queries, landing pages and intent to find pages targeting the wrong need, several URLs doing the same job, content gaps and existing pages with unrealised visibility.
We also look for thin or templated sections, outdated information and content created mainly to capture query variations without adding meaningful value.
The page exists, but its format or answer does not fit the search.
Several URLs overlap enough that consolidation or clearer differentiation may help.
Useful pages have become outdated, incomplete or less competitive over time.
Existing impressions and relevant pages show where improvement may be more useful than creating another URL.
We identify when the change started, which pages and queries moved, whether demand changed and what happened to the website around the same period.
That helps separate technical mistakes, migrations, content changes, seasonality, lost links, competitor movement and broader search-system changes. We do not label every traffic drop a penalty or promise a recovery before knowing the cause.

We compare backlink profiles and the authority around competing pages to understand whether the site has a realistic off-page gap. Third-party authority scores are useful comparisons, not Google metrics or ranking guarantees.
If links are the priority, the audit can feed directly into our Link Building services and Competitor Backlink Analysis.

Findings are grouped by impact, scale, confidence, dependencies and implementation effort. A sitewide indexation issue normally deserves attention before rewriting a meta description on one low-value page.
We also separate observations from confirmed problems. SEO tools can flag useful clues, but not every warning requires a change.
Categories, products, variants, filters, sorting, internal search, pagination and out-of-stock behaviour can create enormous crawl and indexation complexity.
For store-specific work, see Ecommerce SEO. We review the templates and rules producing the URLs rather than reporting the same problem thousands of times.
The output is a prioritised set of findings with enough explanation for the responsible person to understand the problem, affected area and recommended action. Scope can also include implementation support and validation after fixes.
Where a recommendation depends on a developer, CMS, hosting provider or another team, we make the dependency clear instead of pretending every issue is an SEO setting.
We identify the important sections, recent changes, known problems and the organic outcomes that matter.
We review technical, search, content, architecture and authority evidence using the data available for the project.
Issues are ranked by likely impact, scale, confidence and implementation cost instead of tool severity alone.
When implementation is in scope, affected patterns are recrawled and monitored so the audit closes with evidence rather than assumptions.
The exact scope depends on the website, but it can include crawling and indexation, technical configuration, architecture, internal links, on-page targeting, content, structured data, performance, backlinks and organic search data.
No. Crawlers are useful diagnostic tools, but an audit needs interpretation, search data, context and prioritisation. A warning is not automatically a problem worth fixing.
They are very useful for deeper diagnosis because they show actual search and user behaviour. An initial review can begin without them, but traffic-loss and indexation investigations are stronger with first-party data.
Yes. We compare timing, affected pages and queries, site changes and other evidence to identify plausible causes. We do not assume every decline is caused by a Google update.
Implementation support can be included depending on scope and platform. Some changes may need your developer, hosting provider or another specialist team.
There is no fixed schedule for every site. Large, frequently changed or ecommerce websites generally benefit from more regular monitoring than small, stable sites.
No. An audit can identify and prioritise problems and opportunities, but rankings depend on competition, search systems and factors outside the website as well.
Yes, when authority is relevant to the diagnosis. We can review link patterns, competitor gaps and how off-page strength compares around important pages.
Tell us what changed, what you want to grow and whether there is a specific traffic, ranking or indexation problem you are trying to solve.