Technical SEO Services
When good pages don't rank, something between your server and the search index is getting in the way. Technical SEO is the work of finding that thing and removing it, then proving it's gone.
Where pages disappear
Every one of them loses pages. Most technical SEO problems are really one gate quietly rejecting a chunk of your site, and nobody noticing because the pages still load perfectly well in a browser.
Gate 01
Google has to find the URL at all, through links or your sitemap. Orphan pages never get this far.
Gate 02
It has to be reachable and allowed. Robots rules, server errors, and slow responses stop pages here.
Gate 03
The content has to actually appear. This is where JavaScript sites lose the most and notice the least.
Gate 04
It has to be judged worth keeping. Duplication, thin templates, and canonical conflicts get pages dropped.
Gate 05
Only now do content and links decide anything. Everything before this is a prerequisite.
A site can look completely healthy to the people who run it and still be losing pages at gate three. The browser renders it, so nobody thinks to check whether the crawler did.
The work
Not a checklist run for its own sake. We look at these because each one is capable of holding an entire site back on its own.
Area 01
What Google is spending its time on, and what it's ignoring entirely.
Area 02
Whether the content you see is the content the crawler gets.
Area 03
Field data, not a lab score you can game with a caching plugin.
Area 04
How depth and internal linking decide what gets treated as important.
Area 05
Where the site competes with itself without anyone intending it to.
Area 06
Markup that reflects the page rather than decorating it.
How it runs
The order matters. Plenty of technical work gets done on issues that were never costing anything, while the expensive problem sits untouched.
Full crawl, rendered comparison, Search Console history, and server logs if you can get them. We work from what the site does, not what it's supposed to do.
Every issue gets sized by how many pages it affects and how much traffic those pages could carry. Small problems on important templates beat big problems on pages nobody visits.
Each fix becomes a ticket with the affected URLs, the expected behaviour, and how to test it. Your team can pick it up without a translation layer.
We recrawl after deployment and watch indexation and impressions in Search Console. A fix isn't finished when it's merged, it's finished when the data moves.
Working with your team
A hundred page PDF lands on a developer who has no context, no priority order, and a sprint already full. Nothing ships. Everyone blames the other side.
Category pages returning noindex on paginated results
Worth saying
This gets oversold constantly, so here's the honest version of what it can and can't do.
If there are no pages targeting what your buyers search for, perfect technical health changes nothing. The obstacle was never technical.
Worth fixing because slow sites lose conversions, and because it's a tiebreaker. Anyone selling a speed fix as a ranking strategy is overstating it.
A small, well built site often has three real issues and forty cosmetic ones. We'll tell you that rather than inventing work to justify the engagement.
Where technical work pays off most is on large sites, stores, and anything built on JavaScript, because the losses compound across thousands of URLs. If you want to know which category you're in before committing, an SEO audit answers exactly that, or an hour of SEO consulting will get you a straight opinion. Pricing for ongoing work sits on the SEO service page.
Common questions
It depends entirely on which gate was broken. Unblocking pages that were being refused indexation can show movement within a couple of weeks, because the pages were already good enough to rank and simply weren't eligible.
Architecture and internal linking changes work more slowly, usually two to three months, because Google has to recrawl enough of the site to reassess what matters.
For diagnosis, no. A crawl plus read-only access to Search Console and analytics covers most of it. Server logs help a great deal but plenty of engagements run without them.
For implementation it depends who's shipping. If your developers do the work, we never need access. If we're implementing, we'll agree the minimum level of access needed and nothing beyond it.
An audit is a one-off diagnostic with a deliverable at the end. You get the findings and can do whatever you like with them, including nothing.
Technical SEO as a service includes the diagnosis but continues into implementation and verification. Most people who start with an audit and act on it end up wanting this instead.
Not inherently, but it moves where the risk sits. JavaScript frameworks put far more weight on the rendering gate, and problems there are invisible in a browser because your browser renders everything happily.
The usual culprits are content or links that only exist after hydration, routes that never produce a real URL, and metadata written client side. All fixable, but they need checking specifically rather than assumed fine.
Before, and it isn't close. Redirect mapping, URL decisions, and template structure are cheap to get right during a build and painful to unpick afterwards.
Migrations are also where the largest single ranking losses happen, and almost all of them are preventable with a few decisions made early.
Often yes, and that's fine. Good developers implement this work quickly once someone has identified what to change and why it matters.
The part that usually gets missed without SEO involvement is prioritisation and verification. Knowing which of thirty issues is actually costing traffic, and confirming the fix worked once it's live.
It usually runs first, because content and links produce very little on a site that can't be crawled properly. Pricing and scope sit on the main SEO page.
Other SEO services
Thirty minutes on your site, your Search Console, and what's actually stopping pages from getting indexed.
Or email hello@culmen.digital