The 2026 Window Company SEO Audit Checklist

Check: project imagery is delivered efficiently without removing useful visual evidence. Evidence required: page templates, representative gallery pages, rendered image dimensions, file formats, loading behavior, and field or lab performance data where available.

Pass condition: images are appropriately sized for their display context, noncritical gallery assets do not block the initial experience, and important project photos remain clear enough for homeowners to evaluate the work.

Fail condition: oversized originals are served broadly, galleries delay interaction, or image handling causes obvious layout instability. Severity: high when affected pages are core replacement or quote pages.

Owner: web engineering or the site-performance owner. Corrective action: generate responsive image sizes, use efficient supported formats such as WebP or AVIF, reserve layout space, and defer noncritical gallery assets.

Validation: retest representative templates in PageSpeed Insights and browser developer tools, then confirm that conversion elements remain usable.

Check: mobile usability supports the way homeowners actually browse. Evidence required: mobile rendering, tap targets, form completion, navigation, viewport behavior, and Search Console usability signals where available.

The source previously stated that 60-70% of homeowners begin replacement research on mobile devices, but it provides no supporting source URL, so keep that range as historical context rather than a verified benchmark.

Pass condition: a homeowner can understand the service, review project evidence, compare relevant options, and request contact on a small screen without zooming or fighting the interface. Fail condition: key controls are hard to tap, text is difficult to read, content overflows, or forms cannot be completed reliably.

Severity: critical on pages that receive meaningful mobile traffic. Owner: web engineering with marketing review of the contact path. Corrective action: fix responsive layouts, simplify form fields, improve tap targets, and remove mobile-only blockers. Validation: complete the quote path on representative phones and compare field performance before and after the change.

Check: structured data reflects visible, accurate business and service information. Evidence required: rendered page content, JSON-LD, entity details, business information, and structured-data validation output.

Pass condition: markup describes content users can see, uses appropriate eligible types, and matches the actual business and service information. Fail condition: markup invents offers, ratings, service areas, products, or other facts, or exists mainly because someone expects a ranking boost.

Severity: medium unless incorrect markup creates a material misrepresentation. Owner: technical SEO or engineering with business-data review. Corrective action: remove unsupported properties, align markup with visible content, and keep entity details consistent with the site.

Validation: test syntax, compare marked facts against the page, and monitor Search Console for relevant errors or warnings.

Check: Core Web Vitals issues are diagnosed at the template and element level. Evidence required: field data where available, lab traces, the elements responsible for slow loading or layout shifts, and the affected templates.

Pass condition: the team knows which elements create the problem and has addressed the causes that materially affect important pages. Fail condition: the site relies only on a summary score without identifying the element, template, or resource creating the issue.

Severity: high when poor performance affects core service or lead-generation pages. Owner: engineering. Corrective action: prioritize the largest visible content appropriately, reserve dimensions for dynamic assets, reduce blocking resources, and retest. Validation: compare field and lab evidence after deployment rather than assuming a plugin setting solved the issue.

Check: each window style page has a distinct customer purpose in 2026. Evidence required: the service catalog, page inventory, Search Console queries, sales questions, and the window styles the company actually installs.

Pass condition: a dedicated page exists only where a style or service deserves its own explanation, and the content helps a homeowner evaluate fit, options, installation considerations, and next steps.

Fail condition: every style is collapsed into a generic page despite meaningful differences, or thin pages are created merely to multiply keywords. Severity: high for high-demand styles that lack useful coverage.

Owner: content lead with product or installation review. Corrective action: create or consolidate pages according to genuine customer decisions, not a fixed URL quota. Validation: confirm distinct query coverage, content usefulness, and qualified enquiries by landing page.

Check: title tags and headings describe both service and real local context without templated stuffing. Evidence required: title-tag export, heading structure, target markets, and service-area verification from operations.

Pass condition: titles are descriptive, readable, distinct, and tied to a real page purpose. Fail condition: place names are swapped mechanically across duplicate pages or titles target markets the company does not actually serve.

Severity: medium to high depending on duplication and page importance. Owner: SEO or content owner. Corrective action: rewrite titles around the real service and location intent represented by the page. Validation: recrawl titles, check for duplication, and review Search Console query relevance after recrawling.

Check: energy-efficiency information is accurate, current, and useful to a homeowner comparing products. Evidence required: manufacturer documentation, NFRC information where applicable, visible product specifications, and internal product knowledge.

The source specifically referenced homeowner attention to energy savings; treat that as context rather than proof of a ranking effect. Pass condition: U-Factor, SHGC, or related data appears only when it is supported by the product information and explained in a way that helps a homeowner make a decision.

Fail condition: technical values are copied without context, are stale, or are attached to products the company does not offer. Severity: high when inaccurate specifications could mislead customers. Owner: product or content owner with technical review.

Corrective action: reconcile page claims against current source documentation and explain what the values mean for the relevant product or climate context without inventing performance outcomes. Validation: perform a line-by-line fact check against the source documentation.

Check: visual descriptions are accurate and useful. Evidence required: product and project images, alternative text, captions, and the visible context around each image. The source used door-1.jpg and PAS24 as examples of the kind of content that needs review.

Pass condition: meaningful images are described accurately when alternative text is needed, while decorative images do not receive keyword-stuffed descriptions. Fail condition: alt text invents products, locations, performance claims, or other facts not visible in the image.

Severity: medium, or high when the image carries essential product or control information. Owner: content or accessibility owner. Corrective action: rewrite alternative text to describe the image and its page purpose without promotional stuffing. Validation: inspect the rendered page with images unavailable and confirm that the text alternative remains useful.

Check: internal links connect educational content to the service page that best answers the next customer question. Evidence required: crawl export, internal-link graph, page intent map, and anchor text samples.

Pass condition: useful guides link naturally to relevant replacement, material, installation, or location pages when that helps the reader continue the decision process. Fail condition: orphaned service pages, repetitive keyword anchors, or links added solely to manipulate authority flow.

Severity: medium. Owner: SEO and content. Corrective action: add contextual links where the reader has a clear next step and remove misleading or redundant links. Validation: recrawl the site and confirm that important pages are reachable through useful navigation and contextual paths.

Check: Google Business Profile locations and service-area settings match the real business. Evidence required: business registration or operating records, customer-facing address policy, actual service coverage, profile settings, and website contact details.

Pass condition: each profile represents an eligible real business presence or service-area business accurately, with no invented locations or misleading coverage. Fail condition: duplicate, virtual, or nominal locations are created to chase visibility, or profile details conflict with the website.

Severity: critical because inaccurate business information creates both user and platform risk. Owner: local marketing owner with operations approval. Corrective action: remove unsupported locations, correct the business type and service coverage, and align core business details across owned properties.

Validation: review the live profile and the website together, then verify that customers see consistent contact and service information.

Check: the review-request process asks eligible customers for honest feedback consistently. Evidence required: request workflow, templates, eligibility rules, incentives policy, and review-platform practices.

The source suggested aiming for at least 2-3 new reviews per week, but it supplies no supporting source URL for that cadence, so treat it as a historical operating suggestion rather than a ranking requirement.

Pass condition: eligible customers are asked without incentives, pressure, suppression of negative feedback, or selective requests to only satisfied customers. Fail condition: review gating, prohibited incentives, or scripts that ask for only positive ratings.

Severity: high. Owner: customer experience or marketing operations. Corrective action: standardize a neutral request process tied to real completed customer interactions. Validation: inspect templates, sending rules, and recent requests for compliance and consistency.

Check: project photos support trust without relying on undocumented geotag ranking claims. Evidence required: original project images, usage permission, captions, page context, and Google Business Profile media where appropriate.

Pass condition: images accurately show real work and are described clearly for users. Fail condition: stock imagery is presented as company work or location metadata is manipulated in the expectation of a ranking benefit.

Severity: medium. Owner: field operations and marketing. Corrective action: build a permission-based project documentation process and publish images where they genuinely improve service or project understanding. Validation: audit a sample of images against the project records and the claims on the page.

Check: core business citations are accurate where the company is legitimately listed. Evidence required: business name, address where applicable, phone, hours, website, and a list of real listings that matter to customers or the business.

Pass condition: listings are materially consistent and point to the correct business. Fail condition: stale phone numbers, old addresses, duplicate listings, or invented directory placements create confusion.

Severity: medium to high depending on the error. Owner: local SEO or operations data owner. Corrective action: correct inaccurate listings and prioritize legitimate sources rather than pursuing a fixed directory count. Validation: recheck the changed listings and confirm that customers can reach the correct business.

Check: cost guidance is useful, qualified, and sourced to the company's real pricing context. Evidence required: current estimating practices, product range, installation variables, geographic constraints, and approved pricing language.

The source included a previously published example range of $600 to $1,200 per opening, but it provides no supporting source URL, so those figures must remain an illustrative historical reference rather than verified market pricing.

Pass condition: the page explains what changes price, what is included or excluded, and when a homeowner needs an estimate, without presenting unsupported universal prices. Fail condition: outdated or generic prices are presented as current facts for every project.

Severity: critical when inaccurate pricing could materially mislead a customer. Owner: sales or estimating owner with content review. Corrective action: replace unsupported market claims with company-approved ranges, variables, or a clear explanation of how estimates are prepared when such information is available. Validation: compare every pricing statement against the approved source used by the estimating team.

Check: comparison content helps customers evaluate materials the company actually sells or installs. Evidence required: current product catalog, manufacturer information, installation constraints, warranties, maintenance considerations, and common sales questions.

Pass condition: comparisons present meaningful tradeoffs without declaring one material universally best. Fail condition: the page copies manufacturer marketing or recommends products the company does not offer.

Severity: high for pages that influence product choice. Owner: content lead with sales and installation review. Corrective action: rewrite comparisons around verified differences and the decisions customers actually face. Validation: have product and installation owners approve the factual claims before publishing.

Check: local case studies document real projects rather than manufacturing local proof. Evidence required: project records, homeowner permission where needed, photos, service type, product details, and the genuine location context that can be disclosed.

Pass condition: a case study describes a real project and provides information a homeowner can use to judge relevance. Fail condition: generic copy is relabeled for multiple towns, fabricated project details are added, or a location page is created without meaningful local information.

Severity: high. Owner: marketing with operations verification. Corrective action: document real project constraints, decisions, and outcomes only to the extent the company can substantiate them. Validation: reconcile the published case study with internal project records and approved media.

Check: review the latest 10 project images for relevance, permission, file size, descriptive context, and mobile delivery. Evidence required: live gallery and source files. Pass condition: useful images load efficiently and describe real work.

Fail condition: oversized, unsupported, or misleading images remain on priority pages. Severity: high when gallery performance affects quote pages. Owner: marketing with web support. Corrective action: compress, resize, replace unsupported images, and add accurate context. Validation: retest the gallery. Historical effort estimate from the source: 30 minutes.

Check: mobile headers make legitimate contact actions easy to use. Evidence required: representative mobile pages and test calls. Pass condition: the contact control is visible, correctly linked, and does not obstruct navigation.

Fail condition: the control is broken, hidden, or opens the wrong number. Severity: critical on lead pages. Owner: web engineering. Corrective action: repair the mobile contact element and confirm tracking does not interfere with calling. Validation: test on representative devices. Historical effort estimate from the source: 15 minutes.

Check: broken internal links are identified and repaired. Evidence required: a current crawl and a list of broken destinations. Pass condition: internal links on important pages resolve to the intended live destination.

Fail condition: users or crawlers encounter dead internal destinations. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO or web content. Corrective action: update, redirect, or remove the broken link according to the intended destination. Validation: recrawl the affected paths. Historical effort estimate from the source: 1 hour.

• Location pages without local value: Evidence required: page inventory, service coverage, and local content. Pass when a page represents a genuine market and provides useful location-specific information. Fail when the same copy is reused with only a place name changed. Severity: high. Owner: SEO with operations. Correction: consolidate thin duplicates or rebuild only where a distinct page is justified. Validation: compare surviving pages for unique purpose and real service relevance.
• Energy-performance terms without explanation: Evidence required: supported product specifications and customer questions. Pass when technical terms are accurate and explained. Fail when keywords are inserted without context or product support. Severity: medium. Owner: product content. Correction: connect each term to verified product information and a homeowner decision. Validation: fact-check against the approved source material.
• Repair traffic that does not match the business model: Evidence required: service scope, Search Console queries, and call reasons. Pass when pages focus on services the company actually provides. Fail when repair terms attract enquiries the company cannot serve merely because they have search volume. Severity: high. Owner: SEO and sales. Correction: separate, de-emphasize, or remove unsupported repair targeting. Validation: review query relevance and lead qualification after recrawling.
• Stock imagery used instead of real project evidence: Evidence required: image inventory and project records. Pass when visual content is accurate and appropriately licensed. Fail when generic images imply work the company did not perform. Severity: medium. Owner: marketing. Correction: replace misleading imagery with approved real project evidence where available. Validation: reconcile image captions and claims with the underlying project.