Begin with a clear audit question
An audit is most useful when it has a defined purpose. You might want to understand why important pages are not appearing in search, which content needs attention or what to prioritise before a redesign. The goal helps define the pages, data and access needed for the review.
Connect the finding to the evidence
Each finding should explain what was observed, which URLs are affected and why the issue matters. A screenshot, crawl result or relevant search report makes the recommendation easier to assess. Keep observed facts separate from assumptions that still need checking.
Make the next action specific
Instead of an instruction such as “improve SEO”, a useful recommendation identifies the page or setting to review, the intended change and any dependency. If a task needs hosting access, content approval or a developer, that responsibility should be clear.
Prioritise the work
Not every issue deserves the same attention. A practical report groups tasks by likely impact, effort and dependencies. Some findings can be resolved quickly; others need further investigation before a change is approved.
Separate the report from implementation
Agree whether the scope covers assessment, implementation or both. Once changes are made, keep a change log and use actual data over an agreed period to discuss results. An audit should support informed decisions without promising a search ranking.
See the SEO audit service or the labelled audit demonstration.
Read a finding from observation to verification
A useful report lets you trace a recommendation back to something that was observed. The following questions help you assess a finding and discuss implementation. They are particularly useful when an automated report lists many warnings or when several people are responsible for different parts of the website.
What exactly was observed?
Ask for the full affected URL and the supporting source. A crawl result, visible page behaviour and a search report are different forms of evidence. The finding should explain which one supports the claim and when it was checked. If a source is an estimate or the sample is incomplete, the limitation should be stated. “The website has SEO problems” is too broad to guide a practical change.
What consequence follows from the finding?
A broken navigation destination prevents visitors reaching a page. An unclear service explanation can leave customers unsure what to request. Other warnings may have no established consequence until the page is reviewed more closely. The report should connect the observation to the website’s purpose and keep that explanation separate from predictions about rankings. This helps distinguish a real fault from a metric that simply prompts investigation.
What would an actionable recommendation say?
Compare “fix links” with “replace the outdated contact destination in the shared footer, then check a service page and an article that use it.” The latter names a source, intended behaviour and test. A content recommendation should similarly identify the missing visitor question and information needed to answer it. Where a choice depends on the business owner, the report should make that decision explicit rather than guessing at a new claim.
How should effort and priority be discussed?
The importance of a page, the number of affected URLs, the practical impact and the implementation effort all deserve consideration. A shared template problem may affect many pages but require one focused change. Another finding may depend on a larger development project. Ask which tasks can proceed with current access, which need further evidence and which have prerequisites. An ordered action list is more useful than treating every warning as urgent.
How do you know the implementation is complete?
Agree the check before the work begins. For a broken link, open the corrected destination. For a page edit, review the published heading, explanation and related links. For an indexing directive, verify the intended signal on the relevant URL. A fresh crawl can confirm what a tool now observes, while search data answers separate questions about later discovery and visibility. Keep completion evidence with the implementation record.
What should be recorded for a later review?
Retain the issue, source, affected pages, agreed action, completion date and test result. Note unresolved dependencies and any limitation of the checks. If performance is later discussed, use a defined period and appropriate data, and account for other changes that occurred. Do not turn a completed edit or improved audit score into an unsupported claim about revenue or search gains. A practical report makes the difference between those statements clear.
Before commissioning an audit, ask for the review area, required data, deliverable format and whether implementation is included. You can use the labelled audit demonstration to discuss presentation, then agree a scope for your actual website. The demonstration is fictional and does not provide evidence about a real customer’s search results.
Browse the Website & SEO notes archive for more guidance on audit preparation, page content and website launches.