Use this 27-point checklist to audit a home inspection website

This checklist is for home inspection businesses that need a repeatable way to decide what to fix on a website, whether the site is managed by the inspector, an internal teammate, a developer, or an outside marketing partner. Use it when search visibility is uncertain, when leads have been flat for 6 months or longer, when a redesign or migration has changed the site, or when you need evidence before assigning SEO work.

For every check, capture the evidence required, mark pass or fail, assign severity, name the owner, record the corrective action, and repeat the original test after the change. That turns the local SEO work into a traceable operating process instead of a list of guesses.

The full 27-item list is grouped by dependency rather than hype: foundation checks come first, then local visibility, then authority and content support. A failed foundation item should be resolved before work that depends on the affected page or data source.

The 27 checks are ordered so that work with upstream dependencies is reviewed before downstream optimization. Use the related inspection SEO statistics page for context, but do not treat an unsourced benchmark as proof that a specific change will improve rankings.

Foundation group: Review 8 technical and structural checks first. The pass condition is simple: important pages can be discovered, loaded, rendered, and used without a known blocking defect.

Local group: Review 10 checks that connect the inspection business to the markets it genuinely serves. The pass condition is accurate, consistent business information and useful local landing content where a distinct page is justified.

Authority group: Review 9 checks covering service explanations, reputation handling, measurement, and local references. Use the website SEO audit guide when a failed check needs deeper diagnosis.

For planning only, the source grouped early work into 2-4 weeks, local work into 4-8 weeks, and initial review windows into 6-12 weeks. Those are scheduling ranges, not outcome promises. Name the stage you are measuring, record the starting condition, and validate completion separately from any later visibility change.

Foundation Tier: 8 verifiable checks

1. Mobile load performance. Evidence required: a current PageSpeed Insights report for the homepage and at least one core service page. Pass: no known loading defect that materially prevents use on a phone, with 75+ retained here only as the source's existing reference threshold rather than a guarantee. Severity: high when a core page is unusable. Owner: developer or site administrator. Corrective action: reduce the specific payload, rendering, or hosting problem shown by the report. Validation: rerun the same URLs and save the new report.
2. Mobile usability. Evidence required: manual testing on a phone plus browser responsive checks. Pass: navigation, forms, tap targets, text, and images work without forced zoom or overlap. Severity: high for broken booking or contact paths. Owner: developer or site administrator. Corrective action: repair the affected template or component. Validation: repeat the same user path on mobile.
3. HTTPS coverage. Evidence required: browser and crawl checks for core pages. Pass: intended public pages load securely without certificate or mixed-content warnings. Severity: high for certificate failures, medium for isolated mixed content. Owner: host or developer. Corrective action: repair the certificate, redirects, or insecure assets. Validation: reload affected pages and recrawl them.
4. XML sitemap. Evidence required: the sitemap URL and its status in Google Search Console. Pass: the sitemap resolves, lists intended canonical URLs, and is submitted without a known blocking error. Severity: medium. Owner: site administrator or developer. Corrective action: regenerate or repair the sitemap and resubmit it. Validation: confirm the latest status in Search Console.
5. Robots controls. Evidence required: robots.txt and page-level indexing directives on core URLs. Pass: no rule blocks a page that should be available for crawling or indexing. Severity: critical when important sections are unintentionally blocked. Owner: developer or SEO owner. Corrective action: remove the conflicting directive. Validation: retest the affected URL with the same inspection method.
6. Core Web Vitals diagnostics. Evidence required: Search Console and page-level diagnostic data where available. Pass: no unresolved issue that the team has classified as materially harming user experience on priority templates. Severity: medium to high based on affected traffic and page purpose. Owner: developer. Corrective action: fix the measured layout, interaction, or loading cause. Validation: rerun diagnostics and monitor the affected template.
7. Duplicate page signals. Evidence required: a crawl export of titles, descriptions, canonical tags, and substantial body duplication. Pass: important pages have distinct purposes and do not unintentionally compete through duplicated signals. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: consolidate, redirect, canonicalize, or rewrite based on page intent. Validation: recrawl and confirm the duplication is resolved.
8. Internal path to priority pages. Evidence required: crawl depth and a manual navigation trace. Pass: core service and justified location pages are reachable through clear internal links from relevant site sections. Severity: medium. Owner: site editor. Corrective action: add descriptive links where they help users navigate. Validation: recrawl and confirm the intended path.

Local Tier: 10 verifiable checks

1. Google Business Profile ownership and accuracy. Evidence required: access to the profile and current business records. Pass: the profile is controlled by the business and core details match real-world operations. Severity: high. Owner: business owner or designated profile manager. Corrective action: correct inaccurate fields through the available profile controls. Validation: compare the live profile with the business record.
2. Useful location content. Evidence required: a list of genuine markets and the pages that serve them. Pass: a dedicated location page exists only where the business can provide useful location-specific information; otherwise, broader service-area content is used. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: consolidate thin or duplicative pages and strengthen justified local pages. Validation: review each page for distinct user value.
3. Citation consistency. Evidence required: a directory inventory and the business's current name, address where applicable, and phone details. Pass: material listings do not conflict on core identity data. Severity: medium. Owner: local SEO owner. Corrective action: update inaccurate listings and document duplicates that need resolution. Validation: recheck the same sources.
4. Profile media accuracy. Evidence required: the live media set. Pass: images and videos are current, relevant to the business, and do not misrepresent services or locations. Severity: low to medium. Owner: profile manager. Corrective action: remove misleading media under your control and add accurate media when useful. Validation: review the live profile.
5. Review request process. Evidence required: the request message and eligibility rule. Pass: eligible customers are asked consistently for honest feedback without incentives, discouraging negative feedback, or selecting only satisfied customers. Severity: high for gating or deceptive practices. Owner: business owner or customer-service lead. Corrective action: replace selective requests with a neutral process. Validation: audit the current message and recipient rule; the source's 24-hour response language is retained as an operating example, not a ranking requirement.
6. Business identity consistency. Evidence required: the website, profile, and priority directories. Pass: business name and phone information are accurate and materially consistent, with address handling appropriate to the business model. Severity: medium. Owner: local SEO owner. Corrective action: correct conflicts. Validation: compare the same properties again.
7. Structured data accuracy. Evidence required: the rendered markup and page content. Pass: any existing structured data is valid, supported by visible page information, and does not claim unsupported locations or services. Severity: medium. Owner: developer or SEO owner. Corrective action: repair invalid or misleading markup. Validation: rerun a structured-data test. Do not treat markup as a guaranteed ranking lever.
8. Service-area explanation. Evidence required: the site content describing where inspections are offered. Pass: the coverage description is accurate and useful without implying that every named market needs a separate page. Severity: low to medium. Owner: content editor. Corrective action: clarify coverage and remove unsupported areas. Validation: compare the page with actual operations.
9. Profile update governance. Evidence required: a named owner and change log. Pass: profile edits are made when business information or useful customer-facing details actually change. Severity: low. Owner: profile manager. Corrective action: assign responsibility and document changes. Validation: verify that current fields match operations. Do not rely on posting cadence as a guaranteed ranking factor.
10. Review monitoring. Evidence required: access to the review platforms the business actively uses. Pass: new feedback is seen and handled under a documented customer-service process. Severity: medium when complaints go unseen. Owner: business owner or customer-service lead. Corrective action: enable practical notifications and define escalation. Validation: test the alert path.

Authority Tier: 9 verifiable checks

1. Inspection process guide. Evidence required: the primary process page. Pass: it explains scope, customer expectations, limitations, deliverables, and next steps in language a buyer can use. Severity: medium. Owner: subject-matter editor. Corrective action: expand missing decision information. Validation: compare the page against real service delivery. The retained 1,500 reference is a source length example, not a minimum required by Google.
2. Common findings content. Evidence required: a page or section explaining recurring inspection observations without overstating prevalence. Pass: content is specific, accurate, and framed as educational rather than predictive. Severity: low to medium. Owner: inspector or editor. Corrective action: add useful context and limitations. Validation: subject-matter review.
3. Report sample or checklist explanation. Evidence required: a shareable example that protects customer privacy. Pass: visitors can understand the format and purpose of the deliverable without exposing confidential information. Severity: medium. Owner: inspection lead. Corrective action: redact or replace unsafe examples. Validation: privacy and accuracy review.
4. Inspector bios. Evidence required: current team information. Pass: bios accurately describe roles, qualifications that can be substantiated, and service responsibilities. Severity: medium. Owner: business owner or editor. Corrective action: remove stale or unsupported claims. Validation: internal fact check.
5. Buyer-question content. Evidence required: pages that answer actual pre-inspection questions. Pass: answers are accurate, useful, and do not rely on FAQ rich-result expectations. Severity: low to medium. Owner: editor. Corrective action: add missing answers or consolidate thin duplicates. Validation: compare with customer inquiries.
6. Local reference opportunities. Evidence required: a list of legitimate organizations, partners, or publications relevant to the business. Pass: outreach targets are real and the proposed contribution provides genuine value. Severity: low. Owner: outreach lead. Corrective action: remove irrelevant or paid-link schemes. Validation: review acquired links for relevance and editorial legitimacy.
7. Search Console measurement. Evidence required: verified property access and a documented reporting view. Pass: the team can review indexing, queries, pages, clicks, and impressions for decisions. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO owner. Corrective action: verify the appropriate property and document the reporting routine. Validation: confirm data is available.
8. Educational publishing process. Evidence required: an editorial backlog tied to customer questions. Pass: content is published when there is a useful topic and accountable owner, not merely to satisfy a fixed cadence. Severity: low. Owner: editor. Corrective action: replace filler topics with decision-useful subjects. Validation: editorial review.
9. Navigation cleanup. Evidence required: header, footer, and crawl data. Pass: important pages are discoverable through concise, descriptive navigation; a path within 2 clicks may be a practical usability goal for selected core pages, not an official ranking rule. Severity: medium. Owner: site editor. Corrective action: simplify labels and remove dead or duplicative links. Validation: repeat the user journey and crawl.

Do not assume that every one of the 27 checks deserves the same urgency. Prioritize by severity, dependency, and the business impact of the affected page or profile.

Immediate queue: Use a 1-2 week work window for failures that block crawling, break contact paths, expose inaccurate business details, or leave the main profile uncontrolled. The time window is an implementation planning range, not a ranking promise.

Planned correction queue: Use a 2-4 week work window for fixes such as citation cleanup, internal linking changes, or justified location-page revisions when no critical blocker is present.

Longer-term editorial queue: The source referenced 6 months for compounding work. Treat that as a historical planning horizon, not evidence that a particular content or link activity causes a visibility outcome.

Use the checklist to record how many checks actually pass instead of relying on the source's prior claims that sites commonly miss 15-20 items or that 24 completed checks define success. Those figures remain in this leaf to preserve the source record, but the JSON provides no supporting URL for them, so they should not be presented as verified benchmarks.

High severity, low diagnostic effort:

• Ownership or accuracy problems in the Google Business Profile
• Unintended crawling or indexing blocks on core pages
• Broken mobile contact or booking paths
• Conflicting business identity information on priority properties

High severity, higher implementation effort:

• Template-level mobile or rendering defects
• Migration, redirect, canonical, or duplication problems affecting core pages
• Large-scale cleanup of thin or duplicative location content

Medium severity, editorial effort:

• Service pages that do not explain inspection scope or deliverables clearly
• Useful location pages that lack distinct local information
• Weak internal links between related service, process, and location content

Ongoing governance:

• Review monitoring and neutral feedback requests
• Search Console monitoring for new indexing or query changes
• Business Profile updates when customer-facing facts change
• Local outreach that earns legitimate references rather than manufactured links

For each failed check, separate the severity of the defect from the effort required to repair it. A difficult fix can still be urgent, while an easy activity can be low value if there is no evidence of a problem.

Weeks 1-2 - evidence and critical fixes: Confirm ownership of the main local profile, compare business identity data, inspect mobile contact paths, review crawl controls, and assign the highest-severity failures. The source's 3-5 hours is best treated as an old workload estimate, not a promise for a specific site.

Weeks 3-6 - local corrections: Repair citation conflicts, revise genuine location content, correct profile details, and document ownership. If new location pages are justified, a pace of 1-2 pages can be used as a production example, while the source's 5-8 hours remains an internal planning reference rather than a required workload.

Weeks 7-10 - service and education content: Strengthen the inspection process explanation, common findings guidance, buyer questions, and team information. The source's 8-10 hours should be read as a historical capacity estimate, not a standard.

Weeks 11 and beyond - authority and monitoring: Review legitimate local reference opportunities, maintain useful educational content, and monitor Search Console data for indexing and query changes. The retained 3-5 hours describes a prior maintenance estimate only.

For a solo operator, the original source grouped items 1-14 as an early focus and items 19-27 as later work. Keep that grouping only as a sequencing aid: an actual priority should still be determined by failed evidence, severity, available access, and dependency. A larger team can distribute ownership by function, but every correction should end with the same validation step that established the failure.