Technical SEO

The audit and quick wins land in 2–3 weeks; deeper architecture and rendering work runs over the first quarter, prioritized by revenue impact.

Yes — clean crawlability and structured data are exactly what AI answer engines need to retrieve and cite you, so technical SEO feeds GEO directly.

By expected impact against implementation cost, with both stated. Every finding carries what it is costing you now — pages not indexed, crawl budget wasted, authority leaking through redirect chains — and a rough estimate of developer effort. The output is an ordered list you can hand to a sprint, not a two-hundred-row spreadsheet. If we cannot articulate what a fix is expected to change, it does not go near the top of the list.

Both, depending on your setup. We can deliver specifications and code examples for your developers, work directly in the repository where we have access, or sit in your sprint process as a reviewer. On the platforms we know well we implement directly; on unfamiliar stacks we specify and review, because the team who knows the codebase ships safer changes than the team who read it last week.

Yes, and it is more foundational there than people assume. Assistants retrieve pages like any other crawler: if content is only available after client-side rendering, if crawlers are blocked, if pages are slow or return inconsistent responses, you are absent before the question of whether your content is good ever arises. The work overlaps heavily with conventional technical SEO, which is why we treat them as one programme rather than two retainers.

Yes, and quickly is better than carefully in the first week. The usual causes are a small set: redirects missed or chained, canonicals pointing at the old structure, pages rendering only client-side on the new stack, robots rules carried over from staging, or a sitemap still listing old URLs. We work through them in order of how much traffic each explains, and the first pass usually recovers most of it. The longer it stays broken the more ground you lose, so this is work worth starting immediately.

A full audit annually is plenty for most sites. What matters more is continuous monitoring in between — index coverage, status codes, core page speed and structured data checked automatically so regressions surface in days. Almost every serious problem we find in a repeat audit was introduced by a deploy months earlier and could have been caught the week it shipped.

Not usually, and we will not sell it as standard. It earns its cost on large sites where crawl budget genuinely constrains indexing, or when console data says something is happening and nobody can explain why. For a few hundred pages it tells you what you already knew. We propose it when the question we are trying to answer actually requires it.

It is a real but modest factor, and it is commonly oversold. Being genuinely slow hurts, particularly on mobile; moving from decent to excellent rarely changes positions much on its own. Where speed clearly pays is conversion, especially on paid traffic where you are buying every visit. We report it as a user-experience and revenue argument first and a ranking argument second, because that is the honest order.

That is the only version of this work worth buying. Involved beforehand, we define the URL inventory and redirect map, run automated parity checks on staging, verify that staging is blocked and production is not, and set up monitoring for launch week. Brought in afterwards, we are diagnosing a loss that was avoidable and recovering ground that costs more to regain than it would have cost to keep. If you have a replatform scheduled, the cheapest moment to involve anyone is now.