whether URL Inspection confirms live eligibility for key URLs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nGoogle says a page must not be blocked to Googlebot, must work with a supported HTTP status code, and must have indexable content to be eligible for Search. Google also recommends the Page indexing report and URL Inspection for diagnosing and validating indexing issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How to score it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- 22\u201325 = strong technical eligibility with only minor exceptions<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 16\u201321 = generally healthy, but some key pages or patterns need cleanup<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 8\u201315 = meaningful indexation or crawl barriers exist<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 0\u20137 = serious visibility risk<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
2. Site architecture and internal linking \u2014 15 points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A site should not force Google to guess what matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Google says links help it discover pages and understand relevance, and it recommends crawlable anchor links with meaningful anchor text. It also recommends clean URL structures and warns against content setups that rely on fragments in ways Search cannot interpret reliably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grade this section based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- whether important pages are reachable through crawlable links<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether internal links use real anchor elements with href attributes<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether anchor text is meaningful<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether the site hierarchy is clear<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether there are orphan pages or buried pages<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether navigation supports discovery of core business pages<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
How to score it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- 13\u201315 = clean hierarchy, strong crawl paths, strong internal link logic<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 9\u201312 = mostly sound, but some weak anchors, buried pages, or navigation friction<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 5\u20138 = uneven site structure or internal linking weakens page discovery<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 0\u20134 = architecture is actively harming crawlability or relevance signals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
3. Canonical control and duplicate management \u2014 10 points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Duplicate content is normal. Confusion is not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Google defines canonicalization as the process of selecting the representative URL from a set of duplicate pages. It also notes that duplicates can arise from protocol variants, filtering, sorting, regional variants, or accidental duplicates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grade this section based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- whether important pages have coherent canonical signals<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether duplicate or parameterized URLs compete unnecessarily<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether internal links point to preferred URLs<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether canonical targets align with the URLs you actually want indexed<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether staging, test, or accidental duplicates are controlled<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
How to score it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- 9\u201310 = canonical signals are consistent and duplicates are well managed<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 6\u20138 = mostly correct, with a few conflicting or weak signals<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 3\u20135 = duplicate handling is messy enough to split signals<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 0\u20132 = canonical confusion is likely affecting indexing and rankings<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
4. Content quality and topical value \u2014 25 points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is where many audits stay too superficial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is not enough to count words, keywords, or headings. Google\u2019s helpful content guidance asks much stronger questions: does the page provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis; does it provide substantial, complete value; and would someone leave feeling they learned enough to achieve their goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grade this section based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- whether pages match real search intent<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether the content is original or just derivative<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether key pages are substantial enough for the topic<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether the content shows expertise and focus<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether commercial pages clearly explain the service and value<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether content overlaps or cannibalizes itself<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
How to score it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- 22\u201325 = high-value, intent-matched, original content with clear topic ownership<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 16\u201321 = generally useful, but some pages are thin, repetitive, or underdeveloped<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 8\u201315 = inconsistent quality or weak intent matching limits performance<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 0\u20137 = content is thin, generic, or misaligned with audience needs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
5. On-page optimization and search presentation \u2014 15 points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Once the right content exists, the page still needs strong on-page signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Google\u2019s SEO Starter Guide says SEO helps search engines understand your content and helps users decide whether they should visit your site from search. It also recommends clear organization, readable content, and descriptive elements that help people and search engines understand the page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grade this section based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- title tag quality<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- meta description usefulness<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- heading clarity<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- primary topic focus<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- image alt text where appropriate<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- search snippet quality<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- consistency between page purpose and search presentation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This category should not overpower the others. It matters, but it cannot compensate for weak indexing or weak content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How to score it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- 13\u201315 = titles, headings, and page framing clearly support discoverability and clicks<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 9\u201312 = solid basics, with some missed opportunities<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 5\u20138 = inconsistent optimization weakens relevance and CTR potential<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- 0\u20134 = poor page framing or unclear targeting harms search presentation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
6. Page experience and performance \u2014 10 points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Page experience is not the whole algorithm, but it is still part of the quality bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Google says Core Web Vitals measure real-world user experience for loading performance, responsiveness, and visual stability. It strongly recommends that site owners achieve good Core Web Vitals, with targets of LCP within 2.5 seconds, INP under 200 milliseconds, and CLS under 0.1. It also says site owners should think broadly about page experience, including mobile usability, secure delivery, intrusive interstitials, and how clearly the main content is presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grade this section based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Core Web Vitals performance<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- mobile usability<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- layout stability<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- responsiveness<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- content clarity on-page<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- secure delivery<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- whether ads, popups, or design elements interfere with the main content<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
How to score it<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n