Technical SEO audit: identify website problems and prioritise corrections

Two websites with the same number of pages can require very different investigations. A catalogue with filters, variants and several templates creates more technical situations than a collection of straightforward service pages. A useful scope identifies those behaviours and the commercial pages affected by the reported problem.

Include examples that work as expected alongside examples that do not. Comparing them can reveal the difference responsible for a fault. Also record recent changes: a new theme, rewritten navigation, a plugin replacement, a hosting move or a migration. The timing can guide an investigation without proving that the most recent change caused everything.

Before the audit, prepare a small list of URLs with the expected behaviour, observed issue and approximate date it began. This is more informative than a single score screenshot. Search Console and other available evidence can then be compared with the site's actual responses, templates and internal links.

A fictional shop finds that some new product categories have limited search visibility. Inspection shows that those pages identify another category as the preferred address even though they serve different customer needs. A useful report would investigate the rule creating that signal rather than merely listing affected URLs.

Swipe across the table to see every column.

This structure helps the delivery team fix the cause instead of patching one page while the same problem continues elsewhere. It does not imply that changing the signal guarantees indexing or rankings. The scenario is a worked example of a finding, not evidence from a Gloria client engagement.

An extensive report has limited value if nobody can apply the recommendations. Before commissioning it, identify who controls the website and what changes they are able to make. A major template issue may deserve attention before numerous minor observations, particularly when development capacity is limited.

The scope should distinguish investigation, presentation of findings, developer support and retesting. Implementation is included only where agreed. Some checks require server logs, safe test access or information held by another supplier. Missing access should be treated as a limitation, not hidden behind a claim that every possible issue has been examined.

• Rank findings by their observed consequence and reach, while stating uncertainty where evidence is incomplete.
• Give each action an owner and a condition that allows it to be marked complete.
• Record dependencies, such as an editorial decision needed before changing URL handling.
• Retest affected templates and retain comparable evidence from before and after the change.

Technical acceptance and search performance are different stages. The first confirms that the intended change was applied correctly. The second follows how search engines and visitors respond over time, with other changes and normal variation taken into account. Neither a long report nor a corrected setting guarantees additional business.