Session 17: Technical SEO Audit Toolkit
Block 3: The Real-World Technical SEO/SEM Audit (A3)
View lecture slides: Session 17 Slides
Template: log audit findings in the SEO Triage Matrix as you go — impact and effort for every issue, no raw tool dump.
1-Hour Lecture (Theory & Strategy)
- Technical SEO underpins everything else: if a page can’t be crawled or indexed, on-page and content work is wasted.
- Core checks: crawlability (robots.txt, sitemap.xml), indexation (site: search, Search Console coverage), Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP), mobile-friendliness, HTTPS, duplicate/canonical issues.
- Read the full theory here: Technical SEO and SEO Tools.
- Recap the Phase 1 checklist for a quick refresher: On-Page SEO Checklist.
flowchart TD
T[Audit Target: Sandbox or Client Site] --> TOOLS[Free Tools Run]
TOOLS --> CRAWL[Crawlability: robots.txt / sitemap.xml]
TOOLS --> INDEX[Indexation: site: search / GSC coverage]
TOOLS --> CWV[Core Web Vitals: PageSpeed Insights]
CRAWL --> LOG[Audit Sheet: Issue / Evidence / Severity]
INDEX --> LOG
CWV --> LOG
LOG --> TOP3[Flag Top 3 High-Severity Issues]
TOP3 --> A3[A3 Part 1: Technical Findings Log]
Figure 1: Technical SEO audit workflow for A3
Key Concepts in Depth
Technical SEO answers three questions in order. If an earlier one fails, later work is wasted.
- Can Google find and crawl the page? Check
robots.txt(nothing important blocked),sitemap.xml(all key pages listed and submitted in Search Console), and internal links (no orphan pages). - Is the page indexed, and is the right version indexed? Use a
site:yourdomain.comsearch and Search Console’s page indexing report. Watch for duplicates (http vs. https, www vs. non-www, URL parameters) and set canonical tags so one version is preferred. - Does the page deliver a good experience? Core Web Vitals “good” thresholds are:
| Metric | Measures | Good |
|---|---|---|
| LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) | Loading: when the main content appears | ≤ 2.5 s |
| INP (Interaction to Next Paint) | Responsiveness to taps and clicks | ≤ 200 ms |
| CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) | Visual stability: does content jump around? | ≤ 0.1 |
Plus HTTPS on every page and a usable mobile layout. Most Nepali users browse on phones over mobile data, so mobile speed matters more than desktop scores.
Severity should reflect business impact: anything that blocks indexing of money pages is High; slow mobile loading on key landing pages is High or Medium; missing alt text is usually Low.
Worked Example: Pathshala Tutors (Running Case)
Audit log for pathshalatutors.example (illustrative):
| # | Issue | Pages | Evidence | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | robots.txt contains Disallow: /courses/ — course pages blocked from crawling |
6 course pages | robots.txt screenshot; pages missing from site: search |
High |
| 2 | Mobile LCP 4.8 s; hero image is a 2.1 MB PNG | Home, IELTS page | PageSpeed Insights report | High |
| 3 | Both http:// and https:// versions resolve, with no redirect | Whole site | Browser test | High |
| 4 | Pricing page missing from sitemap.xml | /pricing/ | sitemap.xml file | Medium |
| 5 | CLS 0.24 from a late-loading WhatsApp banner | All pages | PageSpeed Insights | Medium |
| 6 | 14 images without alt text | Blog | Manual check | Low |
Top 3 for Session 19: issues 1, 2 and 3. Issue 1 alone explains why the course pages never rank: Google was told not to crawl them.
1-Hour Lab (Agency Execution)
- Pick your audit target: your Phase 1 sandbox site, or (with instructor approval) a real local business site for a more realistic A3.
- Run free tools: Google PageSpeed Insights / Core Web Vitals report, a
site:search on Google, and a manual robots.txt / sitemap.xml check. - Log every issue found in a simple audit sheet: Issue, Page(s) affected, Evidence (screenshot/URL), Severity (High/Med/Low).
- Flag the 3 highest-severity technical issues — these carry into Session 19’s prioritization work.
Common Mistakes
- Starting with content or keywords before checking that the pages can be indexed.
- Copying a tool’s 80-item report without judging which items matter to the business.
- Testing only desktop speed.
- Logging issues with no evidence, so the client cannot verify or fix them.
Deliverable: Feeds Assignment A3 (Part 1 of 3)
Raw technical audit findings log — the evidence base for your SEO Mini-Audit report.
Summary
A technical SEO audit checks crawlability (robots.txt, sitemap, internal links), indexation (site: search, Search Console, canonicals and duplicates), and page experience (Core Web Vitals, HTTPS, mobile). Every issue is logged with pages affected, evidence and a business-based severity, and the top three move forward to prioritisation.
Key Takeaways
- Crawl → index → experience: fix in that order.
- Good Core Web Vitals: LCP ≤ 2.5 s, INP ≤ 200 ms, CLS ≤ 0.1.
- Severity is about business impact, not tool warnings.
- Evidence makes an audit credible.
Review Questions
Short answer
- What is the role of robots.txt and sitemap.xml?
- State the three Core Web Vitals and their “good” thresholds.
- How can you check quickly whether Google has indexed a site’s pages?
Applied (case) questions
- A Kathmandu hotel’s booking page does not appear in Google. List, in order, the technical checks you would run and what each could reveal.
- Rate the severity of these issues for an e-commerce store and justify each: missing alt text, mobile LCP of 5 s on product pages, duplicate www/non-www versions.
