Service ยท /services/technical-seo
Divorce, custody, support and modifications get collapsed into a single services page, and then the firm wonders why it does not rank for any of them. That is a structural problem, and no amount of link building fixes a structural problem.
This is the least visible part of the program and often the part with the highest return, because it costs nothing per month once it is done and it makes everything else work harder.
One page per focus, one primary target per page, and internal links that reinforce rather than confuse the hierarchy. Where two of your pages are currently competing for the same term, one of them is losing and neither of them is winning.
The relevant benchmark is not a desktop lab score. It is a mid range phone on a poor connection at eleven at night, which is when a lot of this reading happens. Images, fonts, and whatever the previous developer left running are usually the whole story.
Organization, service, breadcrumb and FAQ markup where a page genuinely has those things. We do not mark up review or rating schema for a firm, because in several states that touches advertising rules and it is not our call to make on your behalf.
Orphaned pages, links to pages that stopped existing after a redesign, and navigation that buries the pages you most want found. Unglamorous, cheap, and consistently among the highest return work on a firm site.
Which situational queries the firms above you answer and you do not. This is what turns the audit into a plan rather than a list of complaints.
A short list, because the things an agency refuses to claim are more informative than the things it does.
A written document rather than an export. Each finding names the problem, the cost of leaving it, and the effort to fix it, so a firm can decide rather than defer.
Which pages compete with each other, which practice focuses have no page at all, and what the hierarchy should be instead. This is the section that usually changes the most.
What is in the index that should not be, and what is missing that should be there. Old staging pages and duplicate print versions are common and quietly damaging.
Measured on a mid range phone rather than a desktop lab, with the two or three causes that account for most of it named specifically.
What schema exists, what is malformed, and what is genuinely worth adding. We do not recommend review markup for a firm without raising the advertising rules question first.
Orphans, broken targets, and the navigation decisions burying the pages you most want found.
The situational queries the firms above you answer and you do not. This is the part that becomes next quarter plan.
Findings that would not change what you do are left out. An audit that lists everything is an audit that has made no decisions, which pushes the work back onto the reader.
You are buying a written audit and a set of on page changes: structure, titles, headings, internal linking and schema, plus the content gap analysis from Golden upward. It is included in the program rather than billed separately.
You are not buying a developer on retainer, a migration, a redesign, or ongoing maintenance of your hosting. Where a fix needs work outside that scope we describe it precisely enough for your developer to act on, and we say so rather than quietly expanding.
Most of the value lands once. Structure gets fixed, links get repointed, markup gets added, and then it stays fixed. That is why this is bundled rather than sold monthly: charging a recurring fee for work that does not recur would be difficult to justify.
What does recur is the content gap analysis, because the firms above you keep publishing and the gap moves. That is the part worth revisiting each quarter, and it is the part that turns an audit into a plan.
Not an impression, not a signal, not an initiative. A list with the live address of every placement, the domain authority of the host, and the keyword it supports. Ask any other agency for the same list and watch what happens.
Your firm carries the regulatory exposure for its own marketing communications, so your firm reads everything first. No queue, no timer, no piece that goes live because nobody replied.
No contract, no notice period, and nothing is removed when you stop paying. Canceling ends the next month rather than unwinding the last one. That is the difference between building an asset and renting a service.
If your intake is broken, if you need matters this quarter, or if your current site is structurally fine, we will tell you and you will keep your money. A firm that is not ready is a refund and a bad review waiting to happen.
Search results are controlled by a third party whose systems change constantly. Anyone promising position is either guessing or lying, and a partner can tell the difference.
One page trying to rank for everything. A single services page covering divorce, custody, support and modifications will not outrank four firms that each wrote a real page on one of those. The fix is structural rather than cosmetic, and it usually means splitting one page into several and repointing the internal links.
No. Crawler exports list three hundred issues sorted by a severity score that nobody set, and most of them do not matter. Ours is a written document that names what is actually costing you position, what is cheap to fix, and what is not worth touching. If a finding does not change what you should do, it does not go in.
For the audit, no. For the fixes, either you hand them to your developer or we take author or admin access depending on the platform. WordPress, Squarespace, Wix and most firm platforms are all workable. If your site is locked down by a vendor who will not allow changes, we will tell you that before you buy anything.
It helps a system parse what a page is about, which is worth doing. It does not purchase visibility in any AI assistant, and nobody can sell you that. What actually gets a page cited is answering a specific question directly in the first sentence, which is a writing discipline rather than a markup one.
The written audit lands within the first month turnaround for your tier, which runs from twelve to eighteen days on the tiers that include it. Implementation depends on who is doing it and how locked down the site is, and a typical set of structural fixes is a few hours of work rather than a project.
Practice area pages competing with each other for the same term. It appears on most law firm sites we look at, it is invisible without checking, and it is cheap to fix. The second most common is internal links pointing at pages that stopped existing in a redesign two years ago.
Only if you ask and only with your explicit approval on each change. Most of this work is content structure, internal linking and page level markup, none of which requires infrastructure access. Where a fix genuinely needs a hosting change, we describe it and your developer or host makes it.
Up to a point. Getting out of the failing range matters and is usually straightforward. Pushing from good to perfect consumes time that would produce more position elsewhere. We tell you which of those two situations your site is in rather than billing for the second one.
Five questions, then a written analysis covering where you stand in your county and what is structurally in the way. No call, no obligation, no payment details.