Technical SEO

The audit is a one-off. The health is not. Sites change every week. A new theme ships, a plugin updates, a marketing page goes live with a noindex tag still sitting on it from staging. We keep a monitoring rhythm after the fixes land, so the same problems do not quietly return and undo the work six months later while everyone is looking somewhere else. The rhythm is cheap. The surprises are not. Most of our long-term clients are on a light monitoring arrangement rather than a permanent project, and that is deliberate. Fixing the same regression twice is the definition of wasted budget, and monitoring is far cheaper than the second fix.

Yes. We write the tickets, the acceptance criteria and the test plan, and we review the implementation before it ships. Your developers get work they can estimate and test rather than a PDF of suggestions with no acceptance criteria attached. If you have no developer, we do the work ourselves and show you exactly what changed and why it mattered. Either way, nothing goes live unchecked. Technical work that is not tested is a rumour, and rumours do not move rankings.

Two to four weeks for most sites, longer when the platform, the logs and the URL estate are genuinely complex. The audit document is not the deliverable. The prioritised fix list and the first shipped fixes are. Anyone selling a same-day audit is selling you an automated scan you could have run yourself over a coffee, formatted as a proposal. The value is in the judgement about what to fix first, because order decides whether your developers keep listening to us after week two. A fast scan with no judgement in it costs less and achieves nothing, which is a poor trade in any budget.

It scales with the size of the site and with who does the implementing. Tickets cost less than hands-on work. A large catalogue with faceted navigation costs more than a brochure site, and occasionally a rebuild works out cheaper than a third round of patches. We tell you which situation you are in before you commit to anything, and the number is fixed before the fixes start, so a long list never becomes a long invoice. If the honest answer is to spend the budget elsewhere, we say that too.

Technical SEO decides whether your pages can be crawled, indexed and rendered at all. On-page work decides whether those pages answer the query better than anyone else's. The second cannot help you while the first is broken, which is why we fix the plumbing before anyone rewrites the copy. Most sites need both, and in that order. Content investment on a broken site is money spent on pages nobody can find, which is the most common way we see budgets wasted. Once the plumbing holds, the content work starts compounding instead of leaking.

Google has confirmed that page experience feeds into its ranking systems, though it sits well behind relevance and authority in the order of things. The honest case for speed is commercial rather than algorithmic. Slow pages lose buyers on mid-range phones with poor signal, and no ranking benefit ever paid for a checkout that stalls while someone is deciding whether to trust you with their card details. We fix speed for the revenue and treat any ranking benefit as a bonus, never as the business case. Buyers reward speed with their attention and their money, and that is the argument that survives a budget review.