Technical SEO that turns fixes into revenue
Technical SEO makes your site crawlable, renderable and indexable - the layer underneath rankings that most audits describe and few people fix. I audit crawl budget, indexation, JavaScript rendering, structured data and Core Web Vitals, then hand your developers fixes they can ship the same week. Then I verify what shipped.
- Log-file verified, not tool-guessed
- Ranked by revenue impact
- Fixes verified after shipping
What does a technical SEO consultant actually look at?
Four layers, in order. Can search engines reach your pages (crawling)? Can they see what users see (rendering)? Do the right pages make it into the index (indexation)? And once indexed, does the site meet the speed and stability bar (Core Web Vitals)? Every technical problem I've ever fixed lives in one of those four layers - the skill is knowing which one is costing you money right now.
I work from evidence, not tool exports. A crawler tells you what a crawler found; your server logs tell you what Googlebot actually did. When those two disagree - and on large sites they always disagree - the logs win. That's also why my audits are short. You get a short, prioritised list of the issues actually worth fixing - not hundreds of automated flags of which only a few matter.
The problems I find most often
"Discovered - currently not indexed."
Google found the URL and decided it wasn't worth fetching. Usually a quality-plus-internal-linking problem, occasionally a crawl budget one. Fixable, but only after diagnosing which of the two you have.
JavaScript rendering gaps
The page works in your browser and arrives empty for bots that don't execute your framework. This also silently blocks AI crawlers - which is why my AEO work starts with the same checks.
Crawl waste from faceted navigation
Filter and sort parameters generating millions of near-duplicate URLs that eat the crawl budget your product pages needed.
Redirect chains and canonical conflicts
Migrations leave scar tissue. Three-hop chains, canonicals pointing at redirects, hreflang pointing at canonicalised URLs - each one leaks signal.
Structured data that doesn't validate
Schema that's present but broken earns nothing. Run your pages through my free Schema Markup Checker for an instant read.
Core Web Vitals failures with obvious causes
Render-blocking scripts, unsized images, template bloat. Unglamorous work with measurable payoff.
What the deliverable looks like
Every finding becomes a ticket: what's wrong, where it lives, the exact change, and how to verify it shipped correctly. Your developers should never have to interpret an SEO recommendation - interpretation is where fixes die. After each release I re-crawl and re-check the logs, and tell you plainly whether the fix worked. When something I predicted doesn't move the needle, I say that too, because the alternative is you paying for confident guesswork.
Who hires me for this
E-commerce and SaaS teams with a developer on staff get the most from the ticket workflow. Smaller sites without a dev team hire me to implement directly. Agencies bring me in white-label for the technical layer their content teams don't cover. If your problem is actually content or links rather than technical, the audit will say so - I'd rather tell you early than invoice you for a year first.
Questions clients ask about technical SEO
How long does a technical SEO audit take?
Two to three weeks for most sites: one week of crawling and log analysis, one week of testing and writing the fixes, and a working session with your developers to hand everything over. Very large sites (500k+ URLs) take longer, and I'll tell you before we start.
Do you need access to our codebase?
Read access helps but isn't required to start. The audit runs from crawling, server logs and Search Console. When I write fixes I'll reference your templates as precisely as the access allows - with repo access, tickets point at the exact file.
Is this a one-off audit or an ongoing retainer?
Both exist. Most clients start with the audit, ship the fixes with their team, and keep a monthly retainer for verification, regressions and new issues. A site that ships code weekly creates new technical SEO issues weekly - the retainer exists to catch them early.
How is this different from an agency audit?
Agency audits are usually a crawler export with commentary, ranked by what the tool flags. Mine are ranked by revenue impact, verified against server logs, and written as tickets your developers can act on the same week.
Do you implement fixes yourself or only report them?
Both. If you have a dev team, I write the tickets and verify what ships. If you don't, I implement directly - template, schema and server-config changes are things I do myself, not just describe.
Get a free technical SEO audit.
Covers crawl, indexation, speed and schema - findings prioritised, no obligation.