Three myths about SEO audits

The version of this that works is simpler than the version most people imagine. A few things about SEO audits that get repeated more often than they get checked.

Technical fixes remove obstacles; content earns the position. Both are needed and they are not interchangeable. Assume whoever inherits this will have half your context and none of your patience.

“It only matters for big sites”

An audit is only useful if it ends in a prioritised list. Small and consistent beats large and occasional here. The failure mode is not doing it wrong, it is doing it once and assuming it stays done.

“We can deal with it after launch”

Sometimes true, usually expensive. The teams that handle this well are rarely the ones with the biggest budgets.

“Our platform handles it”

Most sites have a handful of issues doing most of the damage. Getting it slightly wrong is survivable. Ignoring it entirely is not. The practical test is whether someone new to the project could tell, in a minute, that it had been handled.

What this looks like day to day

Search engines are trying to answer a question, so the pages that answer questions clearly tend to do well. Three things worth confirming about SEO audits before you move on:

• Someone can say what the current setup is without going to look
• Most sites have a handful of issues doing most of the damage — and you know whether that is true here
• There is a way to tell whether the last change to this helped

None of this needs a rewrite. Most of it is a morning's work once someone decides to do it.