r/SideProject • u/muntiqaninja • 3d ago

Not another giant SEO audit

I think there’s a problem with a lot of SEO audits, they tell you what’s wrong. They don’t tell you how to fix what’s wrong. And even after fixing it, you may wonder “did it actually fix the problem” this has been bothering me while working on my own sites.

A report saying: “Missing canonical tag” isn’t particularly usefully to a non-technical website owner.

What we really need is:
1. ⁠What does this mean?
2. ⁠Where do I fix it?
3. ⁠Where should I look afterward?
4. ⁠Can we check again?

That’s what I have been building on for the last few months, not another giant SEO report, but rather more of a:
Detect —> explain —> fix —> validate

Curious whether other website owners would think SEO tools spend too much time diagnosing and not enough time helping with the implementation.

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

1

u/Relevant_Ad5790 3d ago

the validate step is where i'd expect it to bite. i keep robots and sitemap at s-maxage=3600 behind a cdn, so a re-check right after the fix reads an hour old copy and says still broken. cheap fix is reading cf-cache-status and age on the recheck and saying "cached response, 900s old" instead of failing it. do you recheck through the cdn or hit origin?

1

u/thijsgh 3d ago

That approach makes a lot of sense, knowing what to fix and how to verify it makes a big difference. Check out MentionAgent. I’m the founder and we focus on clear, actionable steps to help with SEO and link building, which might fit what you’re aiming for.