The 2026 Cabinet Maker SEO Evidence Checklist

Before expanding a cabinet shop site, verify that its important pages are discoverable, usable, and technically coherent. These checks are designed to produce evidence that a developer, site administrator, or SEO lead can recheck after a change.

Check: Portfolio image delivery Evidence required: Representative service pages and project galleries, source image dimensions, rendered dimensions, delivered file size, file format, responsive variants, and a mobile PageSpeed Insights review.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when large project images are delivered close to the dimensions actually needed, supported efficient formats are used where practical, responsive variants prevent small screens from receiving unnecessarily large assets, and the gallery remains usable while media loads.

Fail when full-resolution originals are routinely sent into small placements, heavy media blocks important interactions, or essential visual evidence becomes difficult to inspect on mobile. Severity: High on image-heavy service and portfolio pages.

Owner: Web developer or site administrator. Corrective action: Re-export oversized source files for their real placements, generate responsive variants, compress with enough care to retain visible finish and joinery detail, and defer below-the-fold media when the implementation supports it without breaking the experience.

Validation step: Retest the same template on a phone-sized viewport, compare rendered and delivered dimensions, inspect load behavior, and visually check representative wood grain, edges, hardware, and finish detail after deployment. Tools: ShortPixel, Squoosh, PageSpeed Insights.

Check: Structured data accuracy Evidence required: Visible business information, address or service-area presentation, contact details, page purpose, deployed JSON-LD, and an inventory of schema types currently in use.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when each markup type is applicable to the page, its properties match visible information, and the markup does not recast a service, completed project, or business into an entity it is not.

Fail when markup includes stale fields, unsupported claims, fabricated review information, or a Product representation for content that does not actually describe a product offering. Severity: Medium because inaccurate markup can make entity interpretation less clear even when no rich result is involved.

Owner: SEO lead with developer review. Corrective action: Remove unsupported properties, align LocalBusiness or another applicable type with visible page content, and keep markup factual rather than promotional.

Validation step: Inspect the deployed source, verify the rendered values, and use Google Rich Results Test where it is relevant to the markup present. Use Schema.org to interpret vocabulary, not as evidence that a search feature or placement will appear. Tools: Schema.org, Google Rich Results Test.

Check: Mobile usability and Core Web Vitals diagnostics Evidence required: Mobile PageSpeed Insights output, Search Console Core Web Vitals or related page experience reporting when available, and manual tests of navigation, galleries, forms, and contact controls on a phone-sized viewport.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when a visitor can navigate key pages, inspect project imagery, read copy, operate forms, and reach contact controls without blocked elements, unstable interactions, unreadable text, or avoidable performance failures.

Fail when core journeys break or become materially difficult on common mobile layouts. Severity: High on pages that attract meaningful mobile visits or leads. Owner: Web developer. Corrective action: Fix the affected template or component by addressing layout shifts, oversized assets, blocking scripts, inaccessible controls, or other confirmed defects instead of optimizing for a lab score in isolation.

Validation step: Repeat the same lab and field-oriented diagnostics after release and manually complete the identical user journey that failed before the change. Tools: PageSpeed Insights, Search Console.

Check: Internal paths from projects to relevant service context Evidence required: Crawl output, the list of indexable project pages, internal link targets, anchor text, site navigation, and the destination that best explains each project's service category.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when a relevant project page contains a descriptive link to the service or category context that genuinely explains the work shown, and priority service pages are reachable through normal navigation.

Fail when galleries are isolated, important pages are orphaned, anchors are vague, or projects point readers to unrelated destinations. Severity: Medium to high depending on how much important content is disconnected.

Owner: SEO lead or content manager. Corrective action: Repair broken or orphaned paths and add a contextual link to the cabinet maker SEO hub only where that destination is actually useful to the reader rather than inserting it mechanically.

Validation step: Re-crawl the site and manually trace a representative path from a project page to its relevant service context without relying on site search. Tools: Screaming Frog, Ahrefs.

A cabinet maker's content should reduce uncertainty about scope, materials, constraints, process, and fit. The review below asks whether each page has a distinct job and enough verified information to help a prospective client decide what to do next.

Check: Distinct service and project-type pages Evidence required: The current service list, portfolio categories, query themes from Search Console or research tools, and examples of different estimating or sales conversations that occur in practice.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when a separate page exists only for a category with materially different scope, reader questions, proof, and next-step information, such as custom kitchens, built-ins, architectural millwork, or commercial reception work when those categories genuinely differ for the shop.

Fail when one generic page hides important service distinctions or when several near-duplicate pages exist mainly to target wording variations. Severity: High when a major service is difficult to understand; low when the proposed split is mostly semantic.

Owner: Business owner with content lead. Corrective action: Merge overlapping pages and create a focused page only where the underlying service difference is real. Use verified scope, representative work, constraints, and a clear contact or estimating path rather than repeating generic sales language.

Validation step: Compare the purpose, headings, evidence, examples, and conversion path across the final service set and confirm that every retained page answers a different reader need. Tools: Semrush, Search Console.

Check: Image alternative text and nearby context Evidence required: A sample of meaningful portfolio images, existing alt attributes, captions where present, and the project copy surrounding each image.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when informative images have concise alternative text that describes what is actually visible and useful, decorative images are handled appropriately, and nearby text supplies relevant material, style, or project context without stuffing search phrases.

Fail when meaningful images lack alt text, gallery items repeat the same generic description, or the text claims details not visible or otherwise supported. Severity: Medium, with accessibility as the primary reason to correct meaningful gaps.

Owner: Content manager or site administrator. Corrective action: Rewrite alternative text to describe the visible subject accurately, using details such as quarter-sawn white oak cabinetry, inset doors, built-in shelving, or a finished reception desk only when those details are truly present in the image.

Validation step: Review the page with images suppressed or through an accessibility inspection and confirm that the remaining text is accurate, concise, and not repetitive. Tools: WordPress Media Library.

Check: Material and finish decision content Evidence required: Shop-approved information about substrates, solid wood, veneer, finishes, hardware, environmental limitations, maintenance considerations, and the boundaries of what the shop actually offers.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when the page explains tradeoffs a client can use during design and estimating, separates available options from context-dependent recommendations, and can be reviewed by someone familiar with current production practice.

Fail when the copy is generic, copied from a supplier, or uses broad superiority claims that the shop cannot support. Severity: Medium to high on pages used to qualify or educate prospects. Owner: Content lead with a cabinet maker or estimator as subject-matter reviewer.

Corrective action: Replace vague promotional language with shop-specific decision information, including relevant constraints and conditions, while making clear when the best choice depends on project requirements.

Validation step: Have the subject-matter reviewer compare the copy with current estimating and production practice, then confirm that relevant service or project examples support the explanation. Tools: Google Keyword Planner.

Check: Project page substance Evidence required: A verified project brief, publicly appropriate location context, scope, materials, hardware, finish, constraints, approved collaborator credits, and original photography.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when an indexable project page contains enough unique information to explain what was made, which constraints mattered, and why the example is relevant to a prospective client.

Fail when the page is mostly an unlabeled image wall, duplicated captions, or generic marketing copy that could apply to almost any project. Severity: High for portfolio pages expected to support organic discovery or service consideration.

Owner: Content manager with project lead review. Corrective action: Build a concise narrative from verified job records and approved images. A previously used editorial target of 300 words can remain a drafting reference, not a search requirement; write only the amount needed to explain the project clearly without padding.

Validation step: Compare the page with another portfolio entry and confirm that scope, materials, decisions, and context are genuinely specific to that job. Use the cabinet maker SEO mistakes guide when repeated gallery issues need a broader diagnostic review. Tools: Copyscape, Grammarly.

Local search work should begin with accurate business facts, useful geographic context, and legitimate customer feedback. Profile activity can help people understand the business, but it should not be described as a guaranteed or officially documented ranking lever when that claim is not supported.

Check: Google Business Profile category fit Evidence required: The live primary and secondary categories, the services actually sold, and the customer-facing description of the business on the website and profile.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when the primary category is the most specific option currently available that accurately describes the core operation, such as Cabinet Maker when that category is available and correct, and any secondary categories also reflect real services.

Fail when a broader or unrelated category is selected mainly to chase visibility rather than describe the business. Severity: High because an inaccurate category can misrepresent the operation. Owner: Business owner or profile manager.

Corrective action: Review the category choices currently available inside Google Business Profile and select only accurate options. Use Furniture Maker or Kitchen Remodeler only when the shop truly performs work that fits those descriptions.

Validation step: Reopen the public profile after the edit and confirm the intended categories are live and consistent with the website's service language. Tools: Google Business Profile Manager.

Check: Business information and service-area accuracy Evidence required: Live profile name, address visibility settings, phone number, website destination, hours, service areas, and matching contact details on the site.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when public profile fields correspond to the real-world business and listed service areas describe places the shop genuinely serves. Fail when addresses, locations, or market names are invented for coverage, when public fields are stale, or when the profile conflicts with the website.

Severity: High. Owner: Business owner or profile manager. Corrective action: Correct outdated fields, remove unsupported market claims, and create a dedicated location page only for a genuine location that can offer useful location-specific information.

Do not assume every nominal market or service area deserves its own page. Validation step: Compare the live profile, contact page, and any genuine location pages after publication and confirm that the core business facts agree. Tools: Google Business Profile Manager.

Check: Project photos and profile updates Evidence required: Approved recent project photos, permission or rights records, any profile posts supported by the available feature set, and the internal project information used to caption the material.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when images are authentic, accurately described, and useful to people evaluating style, materials, workmanship, or capabilities. Fail when stock imagery is presented as completed shop work, a caption misstates place or project facts, or updates are published only to manufacture the appearance of activity.

Severity: Medium. Owner: Profile manager with project lead approval. Corrective action: Publish truthful shop, fabrication, or installation imagery when it gives a prospective customer useful context.

Mention a neighborhood or city only when the information is accurate and appropriate to disclose. Treat geo-tagging and posting frequency as operating choices, not guaranteed ranking tactics. Validation step: View the public profile and match each reviewed image and caption to the approved project record. Tools: Mobile Phone, GBP App, GeoImgr.

Check: Review request practice Evidence required: The set of customers eligible to receive a request, message copy, sending rules, automation settings if used, and examples showing how favorable and critical feedback are handled.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when eligible customers are asked consistently for honest feedback without incentives, review gating, selective exclusion of dissatisfied customers, pressure, or instructions to insert search phrases.

Fail when only happy customers are invited, critical feedback is diverted away from public review options, or recipients are told what sentiment or wording to use. Severity: High because manipulative practices create policy and trust risk.

Owner: Business owner or customer experience lead. Corrective action: Replace selective or keyword-directed requests with a neutral process sent at an appropriate stage of the project experience. Keep private service recovery available, but do not make access to public reviewing depend on whether the customer reports a positive experience.

Validation step: Audit the workflow from customer eligibility through message delivery and confirm that both favorable and critical public feedback remain possible. Tools: Podium, BirdEye.

Off-page evidence should come from relationships, memberships, projects, and editorial decisions that can be verified. The goal is not to collect links that merely look authoritative; it is to make sure every reference has a legitimate reason to exist and accurately describes the shop.

Check: Partner and collaborator references Evidence required: A list of designers, architects, builders, fabricators, or other collaborators connected to completed work, existing pages that mention those relationships, and any permission needed to reference the collaboration.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when outreach asks for a factual project or partner reference the other organization can verify and any resulting mention is relevant to the shared work. Fail when the shop requests unrelated links, pays for undisclosed placement, or represents a relationship that did not occur.

Severity: Medium. Owner: Business development lead or owner. Corrective action: Identify completed shared work that merits a case study, partner page, or resource reference and propose an accurate narrative without making a link a condition of the relationship.

Validation step: Review any published mention for factual accuracy, correct business naming, and a working destination. Tools: Email, Hunter.io.

Check: Association profiles and memberships Evidence required: Current membership or eligibility records, the live organization profile, business description, and destination shown on that profile. Pass/fail condition: Pass when a profile on AWI, the Architectural Woodwork Institute, NKBA, the National Kitchen and Bath Association, or another relevant body reflects a genuine current relationship and accurate business information.

Fail when the site or profile implies a badge, membership, credential, or organizational relationship that cannot be supported. Severity: High for unsupported credentials; otherwise medium when the problem is stale profile data.

Owner: Business owner or operations administrator. Corrective action: Update only profiles tied to genuine relationships and remove unsupported membership or credential language from the shop website or directory listings.

Validation step: Compare the organization profile with the shop website and confirm that the relationship is described consistently. Tools: AWI Website, NKBA Website.

Check: Editorial project features and earned mentions Evidence required: A project package approved for publication, image rights, accurate credits, verified project facts, and a shortlist of publications or platforms whose editorial scope genuinely fits the work.

Pass/fail condition: Pass when the submission is tailored to the outlet and all project facts, collaborator credits, and usage rights are accurate. Fail when the pitch makes unsupported performance claims, misstates credits, uses unapproved imagery, or submits unrelated material mainly to obtain a backlink.

Severity: Medium. Owner: Marketing lead with project owner approval. Corrective action: Prepare factual project notes, verify rights and credits, and pitch only outlets whose audience and editorial scope match the project.

Treat any resulting link as an earned reference rather than a guaranteed search outcome. Validation step: Inspect the published feature for accurate credits, image use, business naming, and destination links. Tools: PRLog, HARO, Houzz.

Use these items only when the main review has already established a real gap. They are execution shortcuts for confirmed problems, not substitutes for the technical, content, local, reputation, or authority checks above.

Quick check: Bing Places presence Evidence required: A live or unclaimed Bing Places for Business record, its current public fields, and the website contact information used for comparison. Pass/fail condition: Pass when the profile is claimed where appropriate and its visible business details match the real operation.

Fail when the listing is unclaimed, duplicated, stale, or materially inconsistent with the website. Severity: Low to medium. Owner: Profile manager. Corrective action: Claim or correct the record using truthful business information and remove conflicts between the listing and the website.

Validation step: Recheck the public record after a focused 30 mins of cleanup and confirm that the key fields match the website. Treat the work as additional discoverability coverage, not as a promise of traffic or leads.

Quick check: Mobile click-to-call action Evidence required: The mobile header or contact area, the phone link destination, the visible phone number, and a manual activation test. Pass/fail condition: Pass when the visible phone control uses the correct number, is easy to activate, and does not cover navigation or another primary control.

Fail when the number is outdated, the tap target does nothing, or the action disappears on important mobile pages. Severity: Medium on lead-oriented pages. Owner: Web developer or site administrator.

Corrective action: Add or repair a semantic phone link and make the displayed number match the live business record. Validation step: Complete a manual tap test within 1 hour of deployment and confirm that the dialer receives the intended number.

Image naming note: Treat file-name cleanup as part of the broader portfolio image workflow rather than as a separate ranking promise. When new assets are prepared, replace camera defaults such as IMG_1234.jpg with concise names that truthfully identify the image, while giving higher priority to correct dimensions, compression, alternative text, nearby context, and page usability.

Use these items as final cross-checks against the main review rather than as additional checklist points.

• Residential and commercial intent is blended without evidence. Evidence required: current service navigation, page copy, project examples, and sample inquiries. Pass/fail condition: fail when materially different buyer questions are forced into one vague page with no clear scope distinction. Severity: medium. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: separate the page only when the underlying scope and reader needs are genuinely different. Validation step: confirm that each retained page has distinct scope, proof, and next steps.
• Stock photography is easy to mistake for completed shop work. Evidence required: the image library, licensing records, and project records. Pass/fail condition: fail when a reasonable visitor could interpret stock imagery as evidence of craftsmanship from the shop. Severity: high. Owner: marketing lead. Corrective action: replace the image with authorized original work or label contextual imagery so its purpose is clear. Validation step: map each portfolio image to a real project record or to an explicit non-project use.
• Portfolio performance is not validated after media changes. Evidence required: mobile tests, image-delivery data, and results from key gallery interactions. Pass/fail condition: fail when heavy media interferes with navigation, forms, contact controls, or inspection of essential project details. Severity: high. Owner: web developer. Corrective action: optimize the affected assets or template based on the observed failure. Validation step: repeat the same mobile user journey after deployment.
• Local categories or directory descriptions drift away from real services. Evidence required: live profile categories, directory listings, and current website service descriptions. Pass/fail condition: fail when a general Contractor label or another category misstates the shop's primary work. Severity: medium to high. Owner: profile manager. Corrective action: change only fields the platform actually offers and only when the selected category accurately describes the business. Validation step: compare the public listing with the actual service mix and website wording.