Menu
Most sites that plateau are not short of content. They have pages Google will not index, templates that only show their main content after JavaScript runs, internal links pointing at redirects, and a sitemap that disagrees with the canonicals. Those are fixable, and the fixes compound.
What you get
A written audit of crawling, indexing, rendering, Core Web Vitals, internal linking and structured data, built from a full crawl plus your Search Console data, with each fix ranked by impact and effort.
A written audit with a measured baseline, so every fix has a before and an after. Structure shown with example values.
| Checked | Example finding | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Indexable pages Google has not indexed | 212 of 540Critical | Critical |
| Main content present in raw HTML | missing on 2 templatesCritical | Critical |
| Internal links pointing at redirects | 1,340Medium | Medium |
| Orphaned indexable pages | 37High | High |
| INP at the 75th percentile, mobile | 410 msHigh | High |
| Sitemap URLs that are not canonical | 58Medium | Medium |
| Structured data parse errors | noneIncluded | Included |
plus the fix for each finding, ranked by impact and effort
Example values shown. Your report contains findings from your own environment.
Search Console coverage read one page type at a time. "Discovered, currently not indexed", "Crawled, currently not indexed" and duplicate-canonical groups, with the cause behind each group rather than a list of URLs.
Whether your main content, links and structured data exist in the HTML that Google and AI crawlers fetch, or only after JavaScript runs. Single-page apps and heavy themes often fail this without anyone noticing.
LCP, INP and CLS from real Chrome users on your actual templates, not a single Lighthouse run, with the specific element or script behind each failing metric.
Which pages receive links and which are orphaned, redirect chains inside your own navigation, and whether the pages that matter most to the business are the ones your site structure actually prioritizes.
Three things cover almost everything. First, your site URL, so we can run a full crawl the way a search engine would. Second, restricted access to Google Search Console, which is where Google reports what it has actually crawled, indexed and rejected; without it, an audit is guessing at the most important question. Third, viewer access to Google Analytics, so findings can be ranked by the traffic and conversions the affected pages carry. For large or complex sites, two extras make the audit sharper: a short list of your key page templates, and server log files for a recent month, which show exactly where Googlebot spends its crawl. None of this requires admin rights, a developer's time, or any change to the site. Access can be removed the day the audit is delivered.
Yes, and it is one of the most valuable situations to audit, because JavaScript problems are invisible from a browser. React, Next.js, Vue, Nuxt and Angular sites can all rank well, but only if the content, links and structured data that matter are present in the HTML the server sends, or are reliably rendered when Google processes the page later. We compare the raw server response with the rendered page for each key template, check whether internal links are real anchor elements rather than click handlers, confirm that metadata is not rewritten after load, and test what AI crawlers see, since most of them do not execute JavaScript at all. Where the gap is large, the usual fix is server-side rendering or static generation for the pages that need to rank, which frameworks like Next.js and Nuxt support directly.
You get the written audit and a walkthrough call in which we go through findings in priority order and answer questions from whoever will do the work. From there, there are three routes. We can implement the fixes ourselves, which is often fastest for structural work such as rendering, redirects, canonicals and structured data. We can hand everything to your developers as tickets that state the problem, the location, the fix and how to verify it. Or you can take the report elsewhere; it is yours either way. Whichever route you choose, the audit includes a baseline of indexed pages, Core Web Vitals and key rankings, so the effect of each fix can be measured separately. Teams that want ongoing support move to a monthly engagement covering implementation, monitoring and reporting.
This page covers one specific engagement. The service page has the complete scope, process and technology list.