What belongs in an audit finding
This example shows how work can be documented. Your agreed scope determines the actual deliverables.
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Finding | A priority service page is difficult to reach from navigation. |
| Recommended change | Add a descriptive link from a relevant service hub. |
| Responsibility | Developer implements; SEO reviewer verifies the destination. |
| Acceptance check | The link is crawlable and the intended page returns HTTP 200. |
| Outcome to measure later | Relevant landing-page visits and qualified enquiries, with a dated baseline. |
Get a diagnosis your team can use
An SEO audit should help you decide what to do next. We start with your services, customer area, business goals and known website problems. That determines which pages, competitors and conversion paths deserve attention.
A public review can identify many issues in page content and technical responses. A fuller assessment needs Search Console, analytics and business context to distinguish a visible problem from one that is materially affecting traffic or enquiries.
What the audit can cover
The exact coverage is agreed in your scope. Core areas include the pages people find, the signals search engines receive and the actions visitors can complete.
- Search intent and which page should answer each priority query.
- Page titles, descriptions, headings, content gaps and internal linking.
- HTTP responses, crawl instructions, canonical URLs and sitemap quality.
- Representative mobile and desktop performance checks.
- Local business information and service-area clarity.
- Forms, contact paths and definitions of qualified enquiries.
A useful finding includes evidence and a next step
For each material finding, we identify the observed behaviour, affected URLs, likely impact, proposed change and how to verify it. We also mark what remains uncertain. A finding that depends on Search Console should not be presented as confirmed merely because a public search did not show a page.
Priorities consider impact, effort and dependencies. Restoring access to a valuable page usually belongs ahead of polishing its description. Rewriting overlapping pages requires an understanding of their existing traffic and purpose.
An example of the difference between a check and a conclusion
The initial September 2026 audit of this website recorded 71 sitemap URLs. A fresh public crawl on November 4, 2026 checked all 79 current sitemap URLs: each returned HTTP 200 with a self-referencing canonical. Those checks establish accessibility and URL consistency, not Google indexing, rankings or lead growth.
The same review found a temporary HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect and weak internal links to several supporting pages. A useful report keeps findings, completed changes and items awaiting verification separate. The historical audit remains available below with its original measurement dates.
What happens after the review
You can use the findings with your own team or discuss an implementation scope. A proposal should identify who writes content, who makes technical changes, how revisions are handled and how completed work will be checked.
To start, send your website, priority services, service area and what is currently worrying you. No passwords are needed in the enquiry form. The team can arrange appropriate account invitations if a deeper review requires access.
A practical handoff to the person doing the work
Ask for affected URLs, evidence date, priority, dependencies, a recommended correction and an acceptance check for each finding. State which tests require Search Console or analytics access. A public crawl cannot confirm Google-selected canonical URLs, account settings or whether a lead was accepted by your team. Implementation is a separate scope unless your proposal includes it.
Related services and resources
Start with a clear next step
Share your website, your main services and the places you serve. We can use that context to discuss the right review and project scope.
Request a conversation ↗