Audit the essentials, assign fixes, and verify every change

Tree surgeon searches are often local and service-specific, so the useful question is not whether a site has done SEO in general. The useful question is whether a customer and a search engine can verify what work is offered, where it is genuinely offered, and how to contact the business.

Use this page as an audit sheet rather than a list of ideas. For every editable check, save the evidence you inspected, apply a pass or fail condition, record severity, name an owner, describe the corrective action, and repeat a validation step after the change. If your existing audit contains 50 possible tasks, this structure helps separate blocking issues from lower-priority refinements.

Common gaps can appear across 3-4 areas at the same time: page targeting, location usefulness, structured data accuracy, image context, local business data, and internal navigation. The presence of a gap does not prove it caused a ranking change, so document what you observed before deciding what to fix.

The operating goal is a reproducible review. A future reviewer should be able to look at the same evidence and reach the same pass or fail decision without relying on guesswork.

Severity: Critical when essential pages are unclear or inaccessible. Review window: 4-6 hours.

Check: Page purpose and search presentation. Evidence required: the rendered page, page source or CMS fields, and an indexability check for the homepage plus core service pages. Pass when each important page has a distinct title, a useful description, a single primary heading, readable body copy, and no accidental blocking directive. Fail when key fields are missing, duplicated without reason, stuffed, or technically blocked.

• Title check: Evidence required: the rendered topic, title element, and target page purpose. For planning only, a title may often fit within about 50-60 characters, but clarity controls the decision. Pass: the title is distinct and accurately describes the page. Fail: it is missing, misleading, duplicated without reason, or stuffed. Severity: high on an important landing page. Owner: SEO or content lead. Corrective action: rewrite it around the actual service and genuine location context. Validation: reload the page and confirm the updated title is present in source.
• Description check: Evidence required: the current description field and visible page copy. A working editorial range is 120-155 characters when that fits the message. Pass: the description summarizes the page accurately. Fail: it is blank, generic, deceptive, or inconsistent with the page. Severity: medium because the field can affect presentation without guaranteeing how search engines display it. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: write a specific summary without promises or unsupported credentials. Validation: confirm the field is unique and accurately reflects visible content.
• Primary heading check: Evidence required: the rendered H1 and page topic. Confirm there is 1 primary heading. Pass: the heading matches the service or page purpose. Fail: the page lacks a clear primary heading or repeats keywords without reader value. Severity: high on a core landing page. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: rewrite the heading to state the page purpose plainly. Validation: inspect the rendered hierarchy after publishing.
• Subheading check: Evidence required: the visible section outline and DOM. Use H2 and H3 elements where they clarify sections rather than for decoration. Pass: headings follow the content hierarchy. Fail: levels are skipped or chosen only for styling in a way that obscures structure. Severity: medium. Owner: content or development. Corrective action: make the hierarchy reflect the reading order. Validation: check the DOM hierarchy from H1 to H2 to H3 and compare it with the visual outline.
• Opening copy check: Evidence required: the first 100 words and the service facts approved by the business. Pass: a reader can tell what the company offers, where relevant, without decoding slogans. Fail: the opening relies on vague claims, city stuffing, or unsupported proof points. Severity: high for a primary landing page. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: replace vague language with accurate service and location context. Validation: read the opening without navigation context and confirm it still makes sense.

Record every failure in the same audit log. Do not infer improvement from the edit alone; validate the implementation and monitor normal search reporting afterward.

Severity: Critical when existing location pages are thin, misleading, or disconnected from real operations. Review window: 8-12 hours, with a practical writing pace of 1-2 pages per day.

Check: Genuine location usefulness. Evidence required: a list of real markets served, existing location URLs, page copy, internal links, and any first-party information that makes a location page useful. Pass when a location page corresponds to a genuine service market and provides distinct, relevant information. Fail when a page exists only to swap place names or claim coverage that cannot be supported.

• Location content check: Evidence required: approved service facts for the location and a comparison with other location pages. If a page needs expansion, 300-500 words can be a planning range, not a ranking rule. Pass: the page contains distinct, useful, substantiated location context. Fail: it is a place-name swap or contains claims the business cannot support. Severity: critical when the page misrepresents coverage; otherwise high. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: replace generic copy with verified operational or customer-relevant information, or remove the page if it has no useful purpose. Validation: compare it against another location page and confirm it is not a near-duplicate.
• Query alignment check: Evidence required: first-party Search Console data or another available research source plus the business service list. Pass: page language matches actual services and plausible customer intent. Fail: keyword lists are inserted without reader value or suggest services not offered. Severity: high. Owner: SEO lead. Corrective action: align wording with supported services and the search evidence available. Validation: verify the final copy reads naturally and matches approved offerings.
• Location markup check: Evidence required: visible location content and any corresponding structured data. If location-related markup is used, test it during Phase 3. Pass: markup matches what the page visibly says. Fail: it adds unsupported coverage or attributes. Severity: high when inaccurate. Owner: developer or SEO lead. Corrective action: remove or correct unsupported fields. Validation: retest the deployed markup and compare it with the rendered page.
• Internal destination check: Evidence required: the location page, anchor text, and target service page. Preserve useful pathways to core services. The existing tree pruning destination at /services/tree-pruning should be linked with descriptive wording where it is genuinely relevant. Pass: the anchor accurately previews a working destination. Fail: the link is broken, misleading, or irrelevant. Severity: medium. Owner: content or development. Corrective action: repair the destination or rewrite the anchor. Validation: click the link and confirm it resolves to the intended service.
• Location page structure check: Evidence required: the rendered outline, business facts, and contact action. Use one clear H1 page topic and supporting H2 sections. Pass: structure supports the location decision and all factual statements are supported. Fail: the page manufactures testimonials, neighborhood claims, or credentials. Severity: high. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: remove unsupported claims and reorganize the page around verified information. Validation: compare each statement with business evidence before publishing.

If the business genuinely serves 5 cities, that does not automatically mean 5 location pages are required. Create a dedicated page only where useful location-specific information is available and the page helps a customer make a decision.

Severity: High when markup is invalid or contradicts visible content. Review window: 3-4 hours.

Check: Accuracy before coverage. Evidence required: rendered page content, JSON-LD or other structured data present in source, and validator output. Pass when markup uses supported vocabulary, reflects information a user can verify on the page, and contains no fabricated attributes. Fail when markup claims services, locations, reviews, prices, credentials, or organization details that are absent or inaccurate.

• Local business markup check: Evidence required: current business records, visible contact information, and deployed markup. Pass: marked-up identity and contact fields match the website and supported records. Fail: the markup is stale, contradictory, or contains unsupported properties. Severity: high. Owner: developer or SEO lead. Corrective action: remove unsupported properties and align the remaining data with visible content. Validation: test the deployed page and compare parsed fields with the rendered page.
• Service markup check: Evidence required: visible service copy, approved service information, and deployed markup. Pass: the markup describes the service actually discussed on the page. Fail: it adds unsupported services, locations, prices, or attributes. Severity: high. Owner: developer or SEO lead. Corrective action: remove unsupported fields and align the remaining markup with visible content. Validation: compare parsed fields against the rendered copy.
• Organization information check: Evidence required: the website identity details, business records available to the owner, and organization markup. Pass: the values are consistent and supported. Fail: the markup invents profiles, credentials, or contact data. Severity: high when it misstates the entity. Owner: developer or business owner. Corrective action: reconcile the values with supported records. Validation: inspect the final source after deployment and retest parsing.

Google documentation and Schema.org can help with syntax and supported types. Validation confirms whether the markup can be parsed; it does not guarantee rankings, map placement, rich results, calls, or inclusion in Google AI features.

Severity: High when images are inaccessible, misleading, or unnecessarily heavy. Review window: 2-3 hours for an initial batch, then include image review in the publishing workflow.

Check: Image context and delivery. Evidence required: the media library, rendered image, alt attribute, file name, displayed dimensions, and transfer size. Pass when each important image has an appropriate purpose, useful text alternative when needed, and a file size suitable for the page. Fail when an informative image has missing or meaningless alt text, a broken source, or excessive weight without a clear reason.

• Alt text check: Evidence required: the image, its page context, and the alt attribute. Pass: informative images have concise text alternatives that convey relevant meaning; decorative images are handled appropriately. Fail: meaningful images have empty, misleading, or keyword-stuffed alternatives. Severity: high for accessibility. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: write a factual alternative based on the image and context. Validation: inspect the final alt attribute and review the page without relying on the image alone.
• File naming check: Evidence required: the media library, page source, and current file references. Camera-style names such as IMG_1234 or DSC00521 can be replaced when a descriptive name improves media management. Pass: names are manageable and references work. Fail: names are misleading, broken, or changed only for keyword repetition. Severity: low unless a rename breaks delivery. Owner: content or web team. Corrective action: rename only when useful and update every reference. Validation: confirm each affected image still loads.
• Compression check: Evidence required: transfer size, displayed dimensions, and visual quality. Pass: the image is appropriately sized for its use without obvious quality loss. Fail: the file is unnecessarily heavy for the rendered context. Severity: medium to high when it materially slows an important page. Owner: developer or content team. Corrective action: resize or recompress with an appropriate image workflow. Validation: reload the page and confirm both visual quality and transfer size are acceptable.
• Format check: Evidence required: file format, browser support for the site audience, and rendered quality. Pass: the chosen format loads reliably and suits the asset. Fail: the format causes broken delivery or avoidable weight. Severity: medium. Owner: developer or web team. Corrective action: convert the asset to a supported, appropriate format without claiming a guaranteed SEO gain. Validation: test on the devices the business supports.
• Media organization check: Evidence required: the media library and file paths. Keep a consistent structure for tree removal and pruning assets, including the existing /images/tree-removal/ and /images/tree-pruning/ paths where they are already in use. Pass: editors can locate and maintain assets without breaking references. Fail: the library causes duplicates or broken paths. Severity: low to medium. Owner: web team. Corrective action: reconcile organization without changing working URLs casually. Validation: sample affected pages and confirm every image source resolves. Folder organization is an operating practice, not a documented ranking requirement.
• Caption check: Evidence required: the image, project record if available, and surrounding page copy. A project note from 2024 is appropriate only when that date is supported. Pass: the caption adds useful, factual context. Fail: it invents a location, date, outcome, or credential. Severity: medium when a caption could mislead. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: correct or remove unsupported text. Validation: compare the caption with the image and supporting record.

Begin with the 20-30 images that appear on the most important pages. Then apply the same pass or fail test to new media before publication.

Severity: High when customers encounter conflicting business details. Review window: 4-6 hours for the first reconciliation.

Check: Business data consistency. Evidence required: the website contact details, Google Business Profile, and each third-party listing the business controls or relies on. Pass when the core business name, address where publicly applicable, phone, hours, and service information are current and consistent enough to prevent customer confusion. Fail when a listing is outdated, duplicated, or materially inconsistent.

• Google Business Profile check: Evidence required: live profile fields, business records, and matching website details. Verify categories, services, hours, contact details, service-area settings, and photos. Pass: controlled fields are current and supported. Fail: important details are stale, conflicting, or misleading. Severity: critical when customers could contact the wrong place or see incorrect availability; otherwise high. Owner: local marketing or business owner. Corrective action: update supported fields. Validation: compare the live profile with the website after changes. Posts can be useful for communication, but no posting cadence should be presented as a guaranteed ranking factor.
• Angi listing check: Evidence required: the live listing and current business records. Pass: identity and contact details are accurate. Fail: material fields are stale or contradictory. Severity: high when customers could be misdirected. Owner: local marketing or business owner. Corrective action: correct controlled fields where possible rather than assuming the directory itself creates authority. Validation: compare the published listing with current records.
• HomeAdvisor listing check: Evidence required: the live listing and current business records. Pass: identity and contact fields are current. Fail: material details conflict with the business source of truth. Severity: high when customers could be misdirected. Owner: local marketing or business owner. Corrective action: reconcile controlled fields where possible. Validation: confirm the published changes and save a dated audit note.
• Licensing reference check: Evidence required: the public record and documentation held by the business where a license is legally relevant. Pass: referenced credential information matches supported records. Fail: the site or directory claims a credential that cannot be documented. Severity: critical when the statement could mislead customers or create compliance risk. Owner: business owner or compliance lead. Corrective action: correct or remove unsupported credential claims. Validation: compare the live reference with the governing record available to the business.
• Local directory check: Evidence required: each controlled local listing and current business records. Pass: a listing is useful to customers and materially accurate. Fail: it is stale, duplicate, or created only to hit a target count. Severity: medium to high based on customer impact. Owner: local marketing. Corrective action: update, consolidate, or stop relying on low-value entries where possible. Validation: verify the live record after edits.
• Yelp listing check: Evidence required: the live claimed profile and business records. Pass: controlled fields are accurate and supported. Fail: the profile contains material errors or unsupported claims. Severity: high when customer decisions could be affected. Owner: local marketing or business owner. Corrective action: correct supported fields where the platform allows edits. Validation: review the public profile after the change is live.

Use the same evidence standard for all listings. Ask eligible customers consistently for honest feedback without incentives, review gating, discouraging negative feedback, or selecting only satisfied customers. Recheck controlled listings on a regular operating schedule that fits the business; the schedule itself is not a guaranteed ranking signal.

Severity: Medium-High when important pages are isolated or links are broken. Review window: 2-3 hours for the initial pass, then about 30 minutes during a periodic content review. Recheck the highest-priority pages in weeks 3-4 if earlier edits changed navigation.

Check: Discoverable, useful pathways. Evidence required: a crawl or manual page inventory, the rendered navigation, in-content links, and destination status. Pass when important services and genuine location pages can be reached through descriptive links that help the reader. Fail when links are broken, misleading, excessive, or point to irrelevant pages.

• Homepage link check: Evidence required: the rendered homepage, anchor text, and destinations. Pass: major services and genuinely useful location pages are reachable through descriptive links. Fail: important destinations are absent, broken, or mislabeled. Severity: high. Owner: content or development. Corrective action: add or repair only links that help users navigate. Validation: click every priority link and confirm the destination matches the anchor.
• Service page link check: Evidence required: the service page, anchor text, and linked location destination. The existing destination /service-areas/city should remain associated with natural anchor wording when that destination is still valid. Pass: related services and relevant location information are linked where they help the customer. Fail: the link is broken, irrelevant, or misleading. Severity: medium to high. Owner: content or development. Corrective action: repair or remove the link and rewrite the anchor as needed. Validation: confirm the link resolves and the destination provides the promised information.
• Location page link check: Evidence required: the location page, services discussed, anchor text, and destinations. Pass: the page links to the specific services it actually discusses and the anchor describes each destination. Fail: anchors are generic, misleading, or point to unrelated services. Severity: medium. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: replace ambiguous links with relevant destinations and descriptive wording. Validation: click each changed link and compare the destination with the surrounding sentence.
• Resource link check: Evidence required: the guide context, destination service page, and anchor text. Pass: the link helps a reader continue a relevant service decision. Fail: the anchor overpromises, the destination is unrelated, or the guide implies an unsupported offer. Severity: medium. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: remove unsupported promises and link only where the destination adds value. Validation: verify the surrounding sentence remains useful even if rankings do not change.
• Anchor text check: Evidence required: visible anchors, surrounding context, and destination pages. Pass: wording describes the destination without stuffing or deception. Fail: anchors rely on click here, repeat keywords unnaturally, or misstate the target. Severity: medium. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: rewrite ambiguous anchors. Validation: review the page in context and with keyboard navigation.

Internal linking is successful when it improves navigation and discovery. Treat any later ranking movement as an observation to investigate, not proof that a single link change caused the result.