Do you implement the fixes yourself?

No — implementation stays with your developers, which keeps the knowledge in your team. I write the tickets, join the sprint ceremonies where useful, and review the output. For teams without developers, I can bring implementation partners.

What tools do you use?

Commercial crawlers, log-file analysis, CrUX data and custom scripts where off-the-shelf tools average over the problem. The frameworks are the ones built at Omnicom agencies across thirty-plus enterprise audits.

How do you prioritise what to fix first?

Impact and effort, priced. A crawl-budget fix on a two-million-URL site outranks a perfect score on a lab metric. Every ticket carries the reasoning, so engineering can challenge it with data rather than opinion.

[03]Technical

Technical SEO Consulting

Deep technical diagnosis and fix guidance for large sites: crawl efficiency, indexation, rendering, speed and architecture, written for the developers who will ship it.

Written by Rahul Sengupta, independent SEO & AI-search consultant in Melbourne.

About the author

[S1]Scope

What technical consulting covers

Seven areas, modelled on how a search engine actually crawls and ranks a site — not a generic checklist.

Crawlability and indexation
Robots directives, XML sitemaps, canonicalisation and crawl-budget analysis, including log-file work on large sites.
Performance and Core Web Vitals
LCP, INP and CLS at the template level, with fixes prioritised by measured revenue impact rather than lab scores.
Mobile delivery
Rendering parity, mobile-first indexing checks and the gaps between what designers ship and what crawlers receive.
Structured data and markup
Schema strategy across templates, validation pipelines and markup that earns rich results and feeds answer engines.
Architecture and internal linking
Hierarchy depth, orphan pages, faceted navigation rules and internal-link structures that distribute authority deliberately.
URLs, redirects and chains
Redirect mapping, chain flattening, parameter handling and URL design that survives the next three redesigns.
Error detection and resolution
Soft 404s, crawl anomalies, JavaScript rendering failures and the quiet errors that dashboards average away.

[S2]Audit

The 100-point technical audit

Every technical engagement starts here. One hundred points across seven groups, each scored, evidenced and priced.

Crawl and indexation24
- robots.txt
- XML sitemaps
- canonicals
- crawl budget
- log files
Rendering and performance18
- LCP
- INP
- CLS
- JS rendering
- mobile parity
Architecture and internal linking16
- hierarchy depth
- orphans
- facets
- anchor distribution
Content quality signals14
- duplication
- thin pages
- soft 404s
- pagination
Structured data12
- template markup
- validation
- rich results
Measurement integrity10
- analytics accuracy
- GSC coverage
- staging leaks
International signals6
- hreflang
- geo signals

[S3]Process

How a technical engagement runs

Diagnose
Weeks 1–3
The 100-point audit, run against crawl data, logs and rendered pages.
Every finding ships with evidence: the URL, the fetch, the render. Nothing is asserted that cannot be shown.
Specify
Weeks 3–5
Findings become engineering tickets with acceptance criteria.
Your developers get work they can pick up directly — no translation layer, no “SEO recommendations” document that dies in a wiki.
Validate
Ongoing
Fixes verified after deploy, in the same crawl and log data that caught them.
Pre/post measurements per fix class, reported in plain numbers. If a fix did not move the metric, that is reported too.

← All services

[Q]Questions