Crawling and site architecture
Robots.txt, XML sitemaps, response codes, redirects, crawl depth and internal links. For larger sites, log analysis can help establish where crawling is spent, if suitable logs are available.
Miad Ghazi · Independent SEO consultant
If important pages aren’t being found, traffic has fallen, or a migration is coming up, I investigate the technical issues and help your team decide what to tackle next.
You receive documented findings, affected pages and practical recommendations—not a promise that every warning will improve rankings.
Based in Milan. Working remotely with English-speaking teams worldwide.
Start with the problem
You don’t need another full audit every time a tool flags a warning. A focused investigation may be enough. I start with the problem you’re seeing and the decisions your team needs to make.
A technical SEO audit examines whether search engines can access, render and index the pages that matter. It also reviews how the site connects those pages and where technical choices may be limiting their performance.
Check indexing signals, canonical selection, internal links and whether the content renders as intended.
Compare the timing with site changes and Search Console data. A decline is not automatically a penalty or a technical fault.
Plan checks before and after a CMS, domain or URL migration, with attention to redirects and important landing pages.
Investigate filters, duplicate URLs, pagination and templates before applying changes across the whole catalogue.
Technical scope
The scope depends on the site, its history and the access available. Findings are checked against real pages and templates, not accepted solely because a crawler labels them an error.
Robots.txt, XML sitemaps, response codes, redirects, crawl depth and internal links. For larger sites, log analysis can help establish where crawling is spent, if suitable logs are available.
Noindex directives, canonical tags, duplicate URL patterns and index coverage. I compare the intended page with Google’s selected version where Search Console data is available; not every excluded URL is a problem.
Whether important text and links are present in rendered HTML, whether resources are blocked, and how key templates behave on mobile. JavaScript-dependent navigation and content get particular attention.
LCP, INP and CLS, using field data where available and lab tests for diagnosis. Recommendations distinguish a measured user problem from a test score; a faster page does not guarantee better rankings.
Where relevant: faceted navigation, product variants, pagination, discontinued products, language targeting and hreflang. The review follows your site’s actual structure rather than applying every check to every project.
Titles, headings, internal anchor text and schema accuracy on key templates. I flag conflicting page purposes and gaps that need deeper content work, without presenting a technical audit as a complete editorial or backlink strategy.
What about AI search? Accessible text, clear page structure and accurate information are useful foundations. Google requires no special AI file or schema for AI Overviews and AI Mode. Broader prompt-based visibility research is a separate GEO consulting service; neither an audit nor schema can guarantee a citation. Read Google’s AI search guidance.
A WordPress SEO audit needs to distinguish content problems from theme, plugin and template behaviour. For Shopify or WooCommerce, I also follow the routes between collections, categories, products and filtered URLs. A JavaScript SEO audit compares the initial response with rendered content and navigation. These are different investigations, not interchangeable scores from an automated checker.
Before starting, we identify the templates that matter commercially and the parts of the platform your team can change. If a proposed fix needs theme development, an app change or staging access, that dependency is recorded rather than left for your developers to discover later.
A large URL count does not mean every page needs a separate manual inspection. I group similar pages by template and URL pattern, then review representative examples alongside crawl data. Findings state whether a problem was confirmed across the site or only in a sample. A focused indexing audit may be enough when the question concerns one section; a migration audit needs checks across old and new URLs.
The issue list should make a finding reproducible: affected URL, observed behaviour, expected behaviour and a check after release. For example, fixing a redirect chain means verifying the response path and internal links, not just changing a plugin setting. Where follow-up is agreed, I retest the affected templates and record what is resolved, still open or awaiting Google’s next crawl.
From diagnosis to a work plan
I bring the findings together in a report and working issue list. Each recommendation explains what was observed, why it matters and what needs to happen next.
File formats, walkthroughs, access requirements and follow-up support are confirmed in the proposal.
| Affected page | /category/example/ — category template. |
|---|---|
| Evidence | The page returns 200 but declares a different category as canonical. Compare content and intended page ownership before changing the rule. |
| Recommendation | If this category should stand alone, align the canonical, internal links and sitemap with the intended destination. |
| Owner and dependency | Developer: template change. SEO contact: page decision and validation. Test on staging where available. |
| Acceptance check | Verify the released response and HTML, then review Google’s processing separately in Search Console. |
The management summary explains the decision and priority. The developer issue list records affected URLs, implementation notes and acceptance checks.
For a migration, the same format can record an old-to-new URL mapping and the expected redirect response. Release checks compare the actual destination, internal links and canonical output with that map.
Working together
We discuss the site, target markets, recent changes and your team’s capacity. The proposal defines deliverables, access, fee and delivery dates.
I combine crawl data, manual checks and available Search Console and analytics data. Missing evidence and uncertain causes are identified explicitly.
We work through the findings together, including dependencies and who should handle each task. Urgent verified issues can be raised before the full report.
Your team can carry out the work, or we can agree implementation support. Follow-up checks distinguish a deployed fix from a later change in search performance.
The quote reflects URL and template complexity, languages, JavaScript use, data access and migration needs. I confirm the fee and schedule after reviewing the scope—not from page count alone.
The audit identifies and prioritizes work. Development, content rewrites and ongoing monitoring are not automatically included. We agree responsibilities before changes are made.
I’m Miad Ghazi, the technical SEO audit consultant who reviews your site and discusses the findings with your team. My experience includes local service websites and larger multi-region projects. Read about my background. For a multi-market launch, see international SEO consulting.
Before you book
The initial consultation is free; the audit is paid work with an agreed scope. Automated checks can be useful for spotting symptoms, but they do not establish the cause, business relevance or right fix on their own.
Usually the website address and relevant Search Console access, plus analytics where useful. Staging access, crawl exports or server logs may be needed for particular questions. We agree the minimum necessary access; don’t send passwords through the contact form.
Yes, the review can cover WordPress, WooCommerce, Shopify and JavaScript-driven sites. I confirm the architecture and access first. Platform restrictions and any specialist development work are identified in the scope.
It can identify technical issues and guide corrective work, but recovery is not guaranteed. Content quality, competition, demand and search-system changes may also contribute. Manual actions and algorithmic ranking changes require different investigations.
No. Some are expected behavior or low-priority observations. I assess which pages are affected, the evidence of a problem and the likely effort before recommending work. A short list of well-supported actions is often more useful than clearing every warning.
Yes. I can explain findings, help turn agreed recommendations into tasks and verify the deployed changes within a defined scope. If you already have an audit, send its date and a summary first; a targeted review may be more appropriate than starting again.
A practical starting point
Send your website address, the problem you’re seeing and any planned changes. We’ll discuss whether you need a focused investigation or a wider audit.
Free initial conversation. Audit scope and fee agreed before work begins.