Technical SEO for Websites That Deserve to Rank
Engineer-led, not marketer-led. If your site is genuinely good and still invisible, the cause is usually technical and specific — a crawl rule, a rendering problem, a slow page, a missing canonical. I find those and fix them myself, rather than handing you a PDF and wishing you luck.
What an engagement covers
- Crawlability and indexing — robots.txt, sitemaps, canonical tags, stray
noindexdirectives, redirect chains, and duplicate URLs. This is where most "why aren't we showing up" problems actually live. - Core Web Vitals — LCP, INP, and CLS measured properly, then the specific causes fixed: oversized images, render-blocking resources, layout shift from missing dimensions, lazy-loading applied where it hurts.
- Structured data — JSON-LD schema that reflects what's genuinely on the page, which increasingly determines how AI-powered search and assistants describe you.
- Site architecture and internal linking — making sure your important pages are reachable and that link value flows toward the ones meant to rank.
- On-page fundamentals — unique titles and meta descriptions, sane heading hierarchy, descriptive alt text.
- JavaScript rendering — whether crawlers actually see your content, which is a common and invisible failure on app-driven front-ends.
- Mobile experience — indexing is mobile-first, so this isn't optional.
What the audit deliverable looks like
Not a 60-page automated export. A findings document with:
- Each issue stated plainly, with the evidence for it.
- Why it matters — what it's actually costing you, or honestly, whether it's marginal.
- A priority: fix now, fix soon, or leave it.
- An effort estimate, so you can decide what to hand back to me and what to do yourself.
Anything I can't verify gets labelled as unverified rather than presented as fact. You should expect that from anyone doing this work.
What I won't do
No purchased links, private blog networks, cloaking, doorway pages, hidden text, spun content, or fake reviews. Those carry real risk of a manual penalty, and they're not a service I offer at any price. I also won't build near-duplicate location pages for every neighbourhood — it doesn't work, and it makes a site look manipulative.
Related: if your site is dated as well as slow, website redesign covers both, and rankings are preserved through the migration. If crawlers can't see content because of how the front-end renders, that's backend and API territory too.
Common questions
No. Nobody can, and anyone who does is either misinformed or misleading you — Google's ranking systems aren't controllable from the outside. What I can do is make sure your site is crawlable, indexable, fast, and technically correct, so it competes on its merits instead of being held back by problems that are entirely fixable.
Most SEO agencies produce a report and hand the fixes to your developer. I'm the developer — the audit and the implementation are the same engagement, so nothing gets lost in translation or sits in a backlog for six months.
Keyword research and site architecture, yes, since they shape what gets built. Ongoing content production and link outreach aren't what I do — and I'd rather say that than take the work and do it badly. I use no black-hat tactics of any kind: no purchased links, cloaking, doorway pages, or spun content.
That's usually a technical problem with a specific, findable cause — a robots.txt rule, a stray noindex tag, a site that was never submitted to Search Console, or JavaScript rendering that hides content from crawlers. It's the first thing I'd check, and it's often faster to fix than people expect.
Technical fixes land immediately; search engines take time to recrawl and reflect them, typically weeks rather than days. Indexing problems can resolve quickly once the blocker is removed. Competitive rankings are a months-long process, and any specific timeline you're quoted for those is a guess.
Send me your site URL and what you're seeing — or not seeing — in Search Console. Starting with an audit is the lowest-risk way to find out what's actually wrong.