Technical SEO website audit

First, we check which pages are accessible to the search robot and which of them should be indexed. This is done by comparing crawler data, Google Search Console, XML sitemaps, and indexing settings. This analysis helps identify blocked, important pages and unnecessary technical URLs.

Orphaned pages, which exist without accessible internal links, are analyzed separately. If such URLs are to receive organic traffic, they must be restored to a normal architecture and linked to relevant sections via search engine crawler-accessible links.

Robots.txt and indexing directives

The robots.txt file is checked for unintentional restrictions, conflicting rules, and the availability of important sections. Meta robots, noindex, and nofollow are also analyzed, as an incorrect combination of directives can create conflicting signals for search engines.

On large projects, crawl budget allocation for filters, service parameters, and technical pages is also reviewed. The decision is made separately for each URL group, taking into account its search intent, indexing, and internal links.

Sitemap.xml

The XML sitemap must contain canonical, indexable URLs with the correct response codes. The XML sitemap should not include redirects, 404 pages, noindex documents, or technical URLs that the search engine does not need to index.

During the audit, the sitemap is compared with the actual structure and Google Search Console data. If important pages are missing from the sitemap or the file has not been updated for a long time after new URLs were added, the issue is addressed with a separate technical task.

Canonical

Canonical tells search engines which version of a page should be considered primary among similar URLs. Errors occur when the canonical URL leads to a redirect, 404, a different language version, or conflicts with internal linking and the sitemap.

The check covers self-canonicalization, parameter canonicalization, and CMS mass rules. Particular attention is required for online stores, where filters, sorting, and product variations can generate a large number of URLs with similar content.

Hreflang

Hreflang is tested on multilingual and multiregional projects. Language versions must reference each other using the correct language and region codes, and canonicalization must match the chosen localization logic.

Additionally, hreflang backlinks and URL compliance with the actual page language are checked. Errors can result in a version appearing in search results that is inappropriate for the user's language or target region.

Response codes indicate what happens to a URL during a request to the server. For production pages, a valid 200 response is expected, for permanent migrations, a 301 is used, and widespread errors require checking the cause and sources of internal referrals.

A technical website audit analyzes internal links for redirects and unavailable pages, as well as redirect chains. A short route to the final URL simplifies site maintenance and reduces unnecessary requests during crawling.

404 and 5xx errors

404 errors are analyzed along with internal link sources. If a deleted URL continues to receive traffic from menus, breadcrumbs, cards, or content, the link should be replaced, removed, or a suitable 301 redirect to the relevant page should be set up.

5xx errors indicate server or application failures and require special attention. If such responses occur frequently or frequently, search engine crawlers may experience reduced crawl performance on problematic URLs, so the cause is escalated to a developer or infrastructure specialist.

Redirects 301 and 302

301 is used for permanent URL redirection, while 302 is suitable for temporary scenarios. The audit checks for appropriate redirection type, chains, loops, and routes through multiple intermediate addresses.

After migration, old URLs should point to the most relevant new pages. It's also advisable to immediately update internal links to their final URLs to avoid creating unnecessary transitions within the site structure.

Duplicates can occur due to HTTP and HTTPS, www and non-www, slashes, GET parameters, filters, sorting, pagination, and CMS features. If different URLs display the same or nearly the same content, search engines must determine the primary version themselves.

During the audit, duplicates are checked for links to canonicals, robots.txt, internal links, and sitemaps. For some URLs, a redirect is appropriate, while for others, canonicalization or index exclusion is recommended. The decision is made individually for each type of technical page.

The structure should provide search engines with a clear path from the main sections to important landing pages. With deep nesting, URLs receive fewer internal links, and managing the catalog and interlinking becomes more difficult.

A technical website analysis includes checking nesting, directories, pagination, breadcrumbs, and routes to landing pages. Addresses that appear in the sitemap but have little to do with the site's user structure are also considered.

URL structure

URLs must be stable, predictable, and consistent with the current project architecture. Technical parameters, dynamic identifiers, unnecessary nesting, duplicates with and without slashes, and mass URL generation without independent search intent are all checked.

If existing friendly URLs are indexed and receiving traffic, changing them just for appearance's sake isn't recommended. Bulk URL changes require 301 redirects and subsequent internal link, sitemap, and canonical checks.

Internal linking

Internal linking distributes link juice and helps search engines understand the connections between pages. We check for broken links, orphaned pages, click-through depth, redirect links, and situations where an important URL is only accessible through search or a dynamic filter.

After analysis, you can adjust the menu, categories, related content blocks, and contextual links. These changes should align with the actual architecture and help users navigate between logically related pages.

Breadcrumbs

Breadcrumbs help users understand the page's position in the structure and create internal links between catalog levels. The audit verifies the chain's logic, URL validity, and compliance with the actual section hierarchy.

If BreadcrumbList is used, the structured markup data should match the visible navigation. Schema.org should convey the actual user flow, without fictitious levels or non-existent categories.

Technical analysis of website pages includes checking elements that often cause common template errors. Primary considerations include the Title, Description, H1–H6 tags, images, internal links, and metadata automatically generated by the content management system.

On a large project, the source of the error is more important than the number of individual lines in the output. If hundreds of pages receive the same Title due to a single template, the specifications describe the generation rule for the corresponding URL type.

Title and Description

The Title and Description are checked for presence, duplicates, length, and the correctness of the generated templates. For commercial sections, meta tags must match the page's content and search intent, without being duplicated on adjacent URLs.

For a large number of pages, it's more efficient to adjust the generation template than to edit each document manually. Priority landing pages can be optimized separately if they require customized meta tags.

Headings H1–H6

Headings H1–H6 are reviewed as part of the document structure. The main H1 should be relevant to the page content, while subheadings should divide the material into logical semantic blocks with a clear hierarchy.

Additionally, we look for duplicate H1 tags, empty headings, and instances where interface elements receive heading tags purely for design purposes. These types of errors are best fixed at the template level.

Images

Images are checked for Alt text, file size, format, lazy loading, and resource availability to search engines. Large files can slow down loading speed, while a clear Alt attribute helps convey the image's context to search engines.

Image optimization should maintain normal visual quality. The loading logic for the first screen is also checked, as incorrect lazy loading can delay the display of a key image and degrade performance.

Speed is analyzed using lab and available field data. LCP, INP, CLS, server response time, heavy images, CSS, JavaScript, and caching are checked. PageSpeed Insights helps identify problematic resources and evaluate specific loading scenarios.

The purpose of the audit is to identify the causes of slow loading times and unstable interfaces. A high PageSpeed score alone does not guarantee ranking gains, so recommendations are evaluated based on their impact on performance, user experience, and key templates.

Mobile-friendliness is tested using a mobile-first approach, where Google prioritizes the mobile version of the content. Important text, links, and functional elements must remain accessible to both users and search engines.

We evaluate responsive layout, clickable element sizes, navigation, forms, tables, and differences between the desktop and mobile versions. If the mobile template hides important content or internal links, this issue is recorded separately.

Schema.org helps search engines more accurately interpret page entities and structure. Only relevant markup types are checked: Organization or LocalBusiness, BreadcrumbList, Product, Article, FAQ, and other formats that correspond to the actual site content.

Structured data must be valid and match the information on the page. Ratings, prices, reviews, and other properties cannot be added without real data. For additional verification, you can use the Rich Results Test.

A technical SEO audit includes checking the HTTPS, SSL certificate, domain mirrors, and basic HTTP headers. The main versions of the site should consistently link to the selected address without loops, unnecessary chains, or mixed content issues.

Server and hosting issues are analyzed to the extent they impact page availability, speed, or response codes. A thorough vulnerability scan is a separate security audit and requires specialized testing methods.

Google Search Console is used to check indexing, sitemaps, page errors, Core Web Vitals, and the signals Google records for a site. This data is compared with crawl results to verify the extent of the issue and identify any discrepancies.

If you have approved access, you can additionally check Google Analytics 4 and Google Tag Manager. Full configuration of events, ecommerce, and complex analytics is performed separately if such work is not part of the agreed-upon technical SEO audit.

A technical website audit examines parameters that affect crawling, indexing, and page accessibility for search engines. A specialist analyzes robots.txt, sitemap.xml, response codes, canonical URLs, duplicates, URL structure, internal links, speed, mobile version, and other elements.

The result is a list of real problems and recommendations for fixing them. This audit is useful before promotion, after migration, during traffic declines, and after major technical changes to the project.

A technical SEO audit of a website typically includes checking indexation, robots.txt, sitemap, canonical, hreflang, response codes, redirects, duplicates, URL structure, internal linking, Core Web Vitals, mobile-first indexing, and Schema.org.

The exact composition is determined by the resource type. For an online store, filters, parameters, pagination, and product cards are additionally analyzed, while for a multilingual site, localization relationships and hreflang validity are checked.

The cost of a technical website audit depends on the number of URLs, CMS type, number of templates, languages, filters, and implementation complexity. Therefore, it's best to calculate the cost of a technical audit after an initial assessment of the domain and its structure.

To get a quote, simply provide the website address and describe the task. After that, the scope of work, verification deadlines, and the final technical specifications are determined.

An SEO audit, the price of which is calculated individually, depends on the scale of the project and the depth of the audit. A small corporate website requires less time than a large catalog with filters, JavaScript, multiple languages, and a large number of technical URLs.

Migration history, the number of templates, and the need for Search Console analysis are also taken into account. The more individual scenarios that need to be manually verified, the higher the specialist's labor costs.

The timeframe is determined by the size of the resource and the number of technical scenarios. On a small site, page types and URL generation rules can be checked more quickly, as the amount of scanning and manual verification is significantly less.

On large projects, additional time is required for filters, parameters, JavaScript, multilingual support, and Search Console data. The exact timeframe is agreed upon after a preliminary site assessment.

Online stores are particularly susceptible to technical errors due to the large number of categories, products, filters, sorting options, and parameters. A single incorrect template can affect thousands of pages at once, creating duplicates or incorrect canonicals.

The audit helps determine indexing rules, filtering, pagination, removed products, and product microdata. For a large catalog, this type of audit is especially useful after changes to the CMS or structure.

A re-check is necessary after major releases, CMS changes, redesigns, migrations, URL structure changes, and the implementation of new filters or language versions. A sudden change in traffic or the number of indexed pages is also a reason to re-check.

For actively developing projects, regular technical SEO audits help identify new common errors after updates. The frequency depends on the number of releases and the scale of changes to the website.

A basic check can be performed using Google Search Console, PageSpeed Insights, and an SEO crawler. These tools help identify obvious 404 errors, redirects, duplicate meta tags, sitemap issues, and some indexing errors.

The main difficulty lies in interpreting the obtained data. The same technical signal can be normal or problematic depending on the site structure, so large projects require manual verification by a specialist.