Crawling & technical audit
How this is scored
Site crawling at real scale: what the crawler finds, how deeply it checks, whether Core Web Vitals and indexation problems are diagnosed rather than merely listed.
0 — No site crawler; the product is keyword data only.
3 — A crawler with a low page cap that reports broken links and missing tags, with no prioritisation and no rendering of JavaScript.
5 — Scheduled crawls at a stated page limit, JavaScript rendering, issue categories with severity, and Core Web Vitals pulled per template.
8 — Log-file or Search Console integration to compare what the crawler sees against what Google fetched, indexation and canonical diagnosis, structured-data validation, and issues prioritised by traffic impact rather than count.
10 — The audit is diagnostic rather than a list: crawl budget analysed, rendering differences surfaced, regressions detected between crawls with the deploy that caused them inferrable, and remediation guidance specific enough for a developer ticket.
The In-House SEO Lead
Site Audit is documented in real operational depth — scheduled crawls by day and timezone, configurable page and time limits, JavaScript rendering as a toggle with regex include/exclude and HTTP-authenticated crawling, and PageSpeed flags when I supply my own Google API key. We found no public information on issue prioritisation by traffic impact, structured-data validation, canonical or indexation diagnosis, or any comparison of the crawl against what Google actually fetched — without that, findings stay a list rather than a ticket queue. 4 5 1