Technical SEO audit
We investigate the technical problems affecting your important pages and give your team an evidence-backed list of changes to prioritise.
Led by Aaron CheahFounder, Multiplier Engine · Kuala LumpurThese are problems a technical audit can investigate. We check the evidence before recommending a change.
We check whether Google can access and index the page. If it is indexed but rarely appears for relevant searches, we investigate whether the cause is technical or involves relevance or competition.
A changed URL or missing redirect can leave customers at an error page. We trace the old link and check where it should lead.
We check loading, layout and interactions on representative mobile pages, including content that moves and controls that are difficult to use.
We separate confirmed problems from warnings, then prioritise affected pages, effort and dependencies so your team knows where to begin.
A practical fix plan based on affected pages, evidence and business priorities.
See where each confirmed problem occurs, what the checks found and why it matters. Intentional settings and unanswered questions are recorded separately.
Understand which issues deserve attention first, based on the important pages affected, confidence, effort and dependencies.
Each recommendation includes a way to check the change. A successful live check is kept separate from later changes in Google’s indexing or search results.
The audit provides findings and recommendations. Implementation and any retesting are agreed separately in the proposal.
We compare the page itself, the routes leading to it and the available Google information. This helps us distinguish a confirmed technical problem from something that needs further investigation.
Check its response, redirects and instructions affecting crawling or indexing.
Check the text, links and resources available on representative templates.
Use Search Console where available, distinguishing recorded indexed status from live tests.
Trace how visitors and search engines reach the page, including old addresses.
Check loading, layout movement and important interactions.
Genuine anonymised report excerpts.
Each area shows what we inspect, what the evidence can tell us and where further work may be needed.
Help Google find the page
Check whether important pages can be found, accessed and considered for indexing.
See what this coversWe inspect response codes, robots rules, noindex instructions, sitemaps and available Search Console information. An intentional exclusion is not a defect. A working page is not guaranteed to be indexed or highly ranked.
Send visitors to the right place
Trace broken links and check whether URL changes lead to relevant destinations.
See what this coversWe compare internal links, redirects, preferred-page annotations and sitemap URLs. Ordinary duplicate versions are not automatically harmful; we look for a specific mismatch and explain its effect.
Make important content usable
Compare accessible content and test agreed mobile journeys.
See what this coversWe inspect representative templates, rendered text and links, loading, responsiveness and layout movement. Where relevant, we check structured data against visible content. Lab results and real-user data are labelled separately.
Give the team a starting point
Document the evidence, the recommended change and how to check it.
See what this coversEach confirmed finding names affected examples, business context, confidence, dependencies and a recommended acceptance check.
We agree the scope, investigate the website and prepare the findings for the people who will act on them.
We agree the pages, recent changes and concerns to investigate, then confirm which website information is available and record any access limitations.
We combine the crawl with manual checks and available Google information, then explain confirmed problems, intentional settings and unresolved questions.
We group recommendations into practical actions with affected examples, dependencies and checks, and identify who needs to make each change.
This controlled demonstration shows an actual page instruction before and after a test change.
We created a local test page with an indexing restriction, then removed that instruction and fetched the same page again. Here is the actual response evidence.
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">HTTP 200 · Instruction found in the response
No robots noindex meta instruction foundHTTP 200 · Same page fetched again
Tested 30 September 2026. Two HTTP GET requests to the same owned local HTML fixture at /services/office-cleaning/, before and after removing the meta instruction. Both returned HTML with status 200. This is response-source evidence, not a Search Console result or a Google rendering test.
Tell us what concerns you about the website and what has changed. We explain the findings and the decisions your team needs to make before changing it.
Share the pages that concern you, recent website changes and anything you have already noticed.
Discuss why an issue matters, what remains uncertain and which changes deserve attention first.
We help you identify what your developer can implement and whether you want implementation support from our team in the agreed scope.
Use these questions to prepare for a useful audit conversation. Search Console access helps, but its absence does not automatically rule out an audit.
Understand the access we need, what you receive and who handles the changes.
It investigates whether search engines can discover, access and understand your important pages, and where technical problems affect their use. Checks can include indexing instructions, redirects, broken links, duplicate URLs, rendered content and mobile performance. Findings are documented with evidence and prioritised actions, rather than an unexplained list of tool warnings.
Useful reasons to investigate include important pages missing from Google, an unexplained decline in organic traffic, problems after a redesign or weak visibility despite investment in content. These symptoms do not prove a technical fault. We check the evidence and distinguish technical problems from questions about content, demand or other causes.
These platforms handle some technical basics, but themes, plugins, apps, navigation and configuration can still affect how pages are found and used. Using a particular platform does not automatically mean you need an audit. The decision depends on your symptoms, recent changes and website complexity, rather than the platform name alone.
The fee depends on the website’s size, complexity, number of templates and depth of investigation. We agree the pages, checks, deliverables and fee before work starts. Implementation and follow-up checks remain separate scope decisions.
Timing depends on the pages and templates involved, technical complexity and the information available. Crawling is only part of the work; findings also need investigation, validation and prioritisation. We confirm the delivery schedule in the proposal. Implementing changes and waiting for Google to revisit pages are separate from delivering the audit.
You receive prioritised findings with affected page or template examples, supporting evidence, recommended changes and acceptance checks your developer can use. Priorities consider business importance, confidence, dependencies and effort. Confirmed problems are separated from intentional settings and unresolved questions, so not every tool warning is treated as an urgent fix.
The audit identifies problems and recommends changes. Implementation, developer tickets or a handover can be included in the agreed scope, with an owner for each change. We also agree whether retesting is included before work starts.
Start with your website address and the concern you want investigated. Search Console access helps where available; analytics or CMS access is considered only when the agreed work needs it. Use account invitations with appropriate permissions rather than sharing passwords. If information is unavailable, we explain what can be checked and what remains unverified.
No. An audit identifies barriers and recommends changes; it does not guarantee indexing or a search position. A request to crawl a URL is not a promise that Google will index it, and repeated requests do not guarantee faster inclusion. A technically accessible page can still be excluded. For an indexed page that performs poorly, review search intent, usefulness and competition separately from technical access.
It depends on the problem, which changes are deployed and when Google revisits the pages. The first step is confirming that the intended technical change is live. We do this if retesting is in the agreed scope; otherwise, your team can use the acceptance checks. After that, indexing or search performance is reviewed separately where relevant. A successful live check is not proof that rankings or traffic have improved, and there is no guaranteed recovery date.
Reviewing technical risks before launch can help identify URL, navigation and template decisions that need care. After launch, checks can verify redirects, indexing instructions and whether important pages work as intended. Pre-launch review, migration planning and post-launch verification have different responsibilities, so we agree which of them belong in your scope.
An audit can establish a starting point, with agreed retests for implemented fixes. Further checks may be useful after major changes, an unexplained traffic drop or a new indexing problem. The frequency depends on the website’s risks and rate of change. Ongoing monitoring is a separate scope decision, not an automatic monthly commitment.
A practical first conversation
Tell us which pages or results concern you and whether the website has recently changed. We will help define an audit scope your team can act on.