Use this checklist to find, assign, fix, and verify photography SEO issues

This checklist is for photographers who already have a live website and need a practical way to identify, assign, fix, and verify SEO issues. It also works during a rebuild because each check can be used as an acceptance test before a new site or template goes live.

The checks apply to wedding, portrait, commercial, product, headshot, event, and other photography services, but the evidence should match the business model. A local studio should verify its real service area and business information, while a commercial photographer may need to focus more heavily on service pages, project portfolios, technical performance, and enquiry paths.

Use the platform notes later in the checklist to decide who owns each fix. Squarespace, Showit, WordPress, and custom-built sites expose different controls, so a failed check may belong to the photographer, content editor, designer, plugin configuration, or developer rather than to SEO alone.

Goal: confirm that search engines and clients can reach, load, and use the core photography pages before spending time on content refinements.

• Page performance check. Evidence: run the homepage plus a representative portfolio or service page through Google PageSpeed Insights and save the report. Pass: the pages render reliably and no major image, script, or layout issue makes the experience unusable. Fail: repeated loading problems, severe layout instability, or a clear bottleneck remains. Severity: high when booking or portfolio pages are materially impaired. Owner: site owner, designer, or developer. Corrective action: isolate the heaviest assets or scripts and reduce the specific bottleneck. Validation: rerun the same URLs and compare the evidence.
• Mobile usability check. Evidence: open the core pages on a phone and test navigation, gallery interactions, forms, buttons, and text. Pass: the full booking path works without hidden controls or broken layouts. Fail: a user cannot reliably view work or contact the photographer. Severity: high on money pages. Owner: designer or developer. Corrective action: fix the affected layout or interaction. Validation: repeat the same task on the same device class.
• robots.txt check. Evidence: visit yoursite.com/robots.txt and review rules affecting /wp-content, /images, and portfolio paths. Pass: important public pages and required resources are not accidentally blocked. Fail: a rule prevents intended crawling. Severity: critical when it blocks core content. Owner: developer or technical site owner. Corrective action: remove only the unintended block. Validation: fetch the file again and test the affected URL.
• Search Console coverage check. Evidence: verify Google Search Console ownership and review indexed, excluded, and error URLs, including any 404 reports. Pass: important pages are discoverable and broken URLs are understood. Fail: valuable portfolio or service URLs are unexpectedly missing or broken. Severity: high for important pages. Owner: SEO or developer. Corrective action: restore, redirect, or remove links to broken URLs as appropriate. Validation: inspect the corrected URL and monitor the report after recrawl.
• HTTPS check. Evidence: confirm the public URL begins with https://. If secure, internal navigation does not send visitors to insecure variants. Pass: the site resolves securely without certificate errors. Fail: insecure or mixed variants remain accessible in normal navigation. Severity: high. Owner: host or developer. Corrective action: correct the certificate, canonical host behavior, and internal links. Validation: reload core pages in a clean browser session.

Do not assume this phase takes 30 minutes on every site. Record the baseline, owner, and evidence for each failed check so later changes can be compared against the same conditions.

Photography sites can be visually strong while still delivering oversized files, vague alternative text, or inconsistent loading behavior. Audit image handling as a production system rather than as a one-time plugin task.

For every portfolio image you review:

• Alternative text check. Evidence: inspect the rendered alt attribute and the image's purpose on the page. Pass: informative images have concise text that describes the visible subject and context, while decorative images are handled appropriately. Fail: the field is empty when meaning is needed, duplicates surrounding copy, or contains filenames such as "IMG_4521.jpg." For a useful description, 8-15 words can be a practical editorial range, not a ranking requirement. Severity: medium for accessibility and content clarity. Owner: photographer or content editor. Corrective action: write an accurate description tied to the scene and service when relevant. Validation: inspect the rendered HTML again.
• File-size check. Evidence: record transferred image sizes in the browser network panel. Pass: files are appropriately compressed for their displayed dimensions and visual role. Fail: unnecessarily large originals are served to typical visitors. An earlier editorial target used under 200KB as a working reference for some web images; treat it as an operating benchmark that still needs visual and device-context judgment. Source files of 2-5MB should not automatically be delivered unchanged when a much smaller responsive derivative would preserve the intended presentation. Severity: high when image payload dominates important pages. Owner: photographer, platform configuration, or developer. Corrective action: resize, compress, and serve responsive derivatives. Validation: compare transferred bytes and visual quality after publishing.
• Filename check. Evidence: review file names before or after upload. Pass: names are readable and maintainable where the platform preserves them. Fail: the media library is dominated by opaque labels such as "photo-123.jpg" with no internal production value. A descriptive name is useful for asset management, but do not present filenames as a guaranteed ranking lever across 50+ portfolio images. Severity: low. Owner: photographer or content editor. Corrective action: use a consistent descriptive naming convention for new assets. Validation: check the media library and rendered asset URL where applicable.

Platform check: verify what the site actually serves rather than assuming a platform has optimized every upload. Squarespace, Showit, WordPress, a CDN, or an image plugin may transform files differently by template and configuration. Keep a before-and-after record, such as "47 portfolio images compressed - reduced homepage load time from 4.2s to 2.1s," only when those measurements come from your own controlled test.

Portfolio structure should make it obvious what kind of photography is offered, where relevant work was produced, and how a prospective client moves from examples to an enquiry. Audit the current architecture against those decisions rather than assuming that one page type always ranks better.

Gallery-based portfolio check: Evidence: review the main gallery, its internal links, headings, filters, and the search intent it is expected to satisfy. A gallery holding 20-50 images can pass when it clearly represents a coherent service and routes visitors to deeper information. It fails when unrelated work is mixed together and the page offers no useful context for a client comparing services. The earlier example that one broad gallery may be less specific than 10 service-focused destinations should be treated as an architecture illustration, not a ranking guarantee. Severity: medium. Owner: photographer or content lead. Corrective action: separate genuinely different services or intents. Validation: confirm each important service has an obvious destination and internal path.

Individual project or image-page check: Evidence: inspect pages that exist primarily for a single project or image. A page with 200-300 words should pass only if that text is genuinely useful, specific to the project or service, and worth indexing. It fails if thin copy has been created merely to multiply URLs. Preserve /portfolio/jennifer-mike-wedding-boston only as the existing example of a descriptive project path, not as a required template. Severity: medium to high when thin pages are widespread. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: enrich, consolidate, noindex, or remove low-value destinations based on their purpose. Validation: review the final page set for unique intent and useful evidence.

Service-page coverage check: Evidence: list the photography services that materially differ in audience, deliverable, or buying intent. The existing operating example suggests 3-5 standalone destinations for highest-value services, using /wedding-photography and /corporate-headshots as examples. Each page can include 4-8 relevant portfolio images and about 300 words when that amount is needed to explain the offer, but word count itself is not the pass condition. Pass: each important service has enough original information to help a buyer decide. Fail: pages are duplicated, vague, or disconnected from representative work. Severity: high for core revenue services. Owner: photographer and content editor. Corrective action: create or consolidate pages around real service intent. Validation: check the page against the enquiry questions clients actually ask.

On-page structure check: Evidence: inspect the H1, gallery, supporting copy, social proof, process information, and contact path. A page may use 1-2 testimonials where appropriate, but that count is not a ranking requirement. Pass: the heading accurately describes the service and location when relevant, the portfolio evidence matches the offer, and the enquiry action is clear. Fail: the page title, work shown, and booking path contradict each other. Severity: high on important service pages. Owner: content editor. Corrective action: align the page around one clear service decision. Validation: reread the page as a prospective client and verify every section supports that decision.

Structured data is useful when it accurately describes information already represented by the business and page. It is not a substitute for visible content, and no schema type should be presented as a guaranteed ranking or rich-result mechanism.

LocalBusiness markup check: Evidence: inspect the rendered structured data on the page where the business entity is represented. Pass: the business name, phone details, eligible address or service information, business type, hours when applicable, and representative image agree with visible information and real operations. Fail: required properties are malformed, values conflict with the page, or the markup claims a location or business detail that is not true. Severity: medium, or high when entity information is materially wrong. Owner: developer, SEO, or plugin administrator. Corrective action: remove unsupported properties and align the markup with the page. Validation: parse the final output with Google's Rich Results Test or another schema validator, while remembering that validation does not guarantee a special appearance.

Service markup check: Evidence: compare any service-related structured data with the visible service page. Pass: service name, provider, area served, and public pricing information where used match what a client can see. Fail: markup invents availability, rates, service areas, or booking claims. Severity: medium. Owner: SEO or developer. Corrective action: keep only supported properties. Validation: compare the JSON output to the rendered page line by line.

Implementation check: Evidence: determine how Squarespace, Showit, WordPress, the theme, or installed plugins generate structured data before adding more. Do not assume Yoast SEO, RankMath, or custom HTML behaves the same on every installation. Pass: one coherent implementation represents the visible entity without contradictory duplicates. Fail: multiple plugins or code blocks output conflicting entities. Severity: medium. Owner: developer or plugin administrator. Corrective action: consolidate the source of truth. Validation: inspect the final rendered markup, not only the editing interface.

Use business information checks to make sure clients and platforms can identify the same photographer. Exact typography is less important than preventing materially conflicting names, obsolete addresses, disconnected phone details, or duplicate profiles.

Audit business information: Evidence: create one reference record for the business name, eligible public address when applicable, phone details, website, and core service description, then compare it against the homepage, footer, About page, Contact page, Google Business Profile, Google Maps, and photography directories. Pass: each active listing clearly describes the same business. Fail: old locations, conflicting names, duplicate profiles, or disconnected phone details could mislead a client. Severity: high when contact or location data is wrong. Owner: business owner or local SEO lead. Corrective action: update authoritative profiles first, then remaining listings. Validation: repeat the comparison after updates publish.

If the website says "Sarah Chen Photography" while a profile says "Sarah Chen Photographer," investigate whether that difference reflects a real brand variation or an outdated listing before changing anything. The pass condition is identity clarity, not mechanical character-for-character matching.

Directory check: Evidence: list only platforms that are relevant to the photography niche and market, then confirm each profile is accurate, maintained, and useful for discovery or reputation. The previously published operating example of adding business information to 5-10 directories and seeing movement within 6-8 weeks is observational and requires source reconciliation; it should not be treated as a promised timeframe or causal ranking effect. Severity: medium when important profiles are inaccurate, low when a marginal directory is absent. Owner: business owner or local SEO lead. Corrective action: correct or retire inaccurate listings and prioritize platforms clients actually use. Validation: revisit the live profiles and compare them with the reference record.

Google Business Profile check: Evidence: confirm the profile is claimed when the business is eligible, accurate, and aligned with how clients interact with the photographer. Pass: name, phone number, website, category, address or service-area configuration, and visible service information reflect real operations. Fail: the profile is unclaimed, inaccurate, duplicated, or represents a location the business does not legitimately operate. Severity: high for local discovery. Owner: business owner. Corrective action: correct the profile according to platform eligibility and business facts. Validation: review the live public profile after changes are approved.

Squarespace: Evidence: inspect how the current template handles image derivatives, alt attributes, title fields, canonical tags, redirects, and structured data. Pass: the required photography pages can be edited and validated without contradictory output. Fail: an important field is inaccessible or generated incorrectly. Severity: depends on the affected check. Owner: site editor or developer. Corrective action: use supported platform controls before adding custom code, and document any custom override so it can be retested after template changes.

Showit: Evidence: verify the controls available in the current build rather than relying on assumptions about drag-and-drop elements, metadata, or custom code. Pass: core pages expose enough control to meet the technical and content checks in this audit. Fail: a platform limitation prevents a required fix or makes maintenance unreliable. Severity: medium to high depending on scope. Owner: designer or developer. Corrective action: use the platform's supported fields where possible and document any custom-code dependency before further investment.

WordPress with a photography theme (Neve, Astra, Soledad): Evidence: inspect theme output, image settings, caching, plugins, alt fields, canonical tags, and any structured-data generators such as Yoast SEO or RankMath. Pass: plugins and theme responsibilities are clear and do not conflict. Fail: duplicate functions, heavy assets, or competing markup create inconsistent output. Severity: high when the conflict affects crawling, performance, or important pages. Owner: WordPress administrator or developer. Corrective action: simplify the stack and assign one source of truth per function.

All platforms: complete Phase 1 evidence before changing templates or adding plugins, then use Phase 2 image checks on representative galleries. Platform choice matters, but the pass or fail decision should come from the live output you can inspect and retest.

Week 1: Technical evidence

• ☐ Performance: save PageSpeed Insights evidence for the homepage and a portfolio page; pass when the main experience is usable and major bottlenecks are identified; owner: developer or site owner; fix the specific bottleneck; validate by rerunning the same pages.
• ☐ Mobile: complete the enquiry path on a phone; pass when galleries, navigation, forms, and buttons work; owner: designer; fix broken interactions; validate on the same device class.
• ☐ robots.txt: visit yoursite.com/robots.txt; pass when important portfolio paths are not unintentionally blocked; owner: developer; correct the rule; validate with a fresh fetch.
• ☐ Search Console: verify ownership and classify important index or crawl issues instead of treating every status as an error.
• ☐ Broken URLs: investigate any 404 affecting internal links or valuable historical pages; severity is high when users or crawlers are sent to dead destinations; owner: developer or content editor; restore, redirect, or remove the source link; validate the final response.

Week 2-3: Image evidence

• ☐ Transferred size: inspect representative portfolio assets. The earlier operating target was under 200KB for some web images; use it as a working reference only when visual quality and display size support it.
• ☐ File naming: keep bride-groom-outdoor-portrait.jpg as the existing descriptive example; pass when new assets follow a maintainable convention rather than opaque production names.
• ☐ Alternative text: review 20 key portfolio images first and use 8-15 words only as an editorial guide where that length accurately describes the image.
• ☐ Retest: rerun PageSpeed Insights under the same conditions used in Week 1. An improvement of 0.5-1.5 seconds can be recorded only when your own test produces it; do not treat it as a required outcome.

Week 4: Portfolio and service structure

• ☐ Decide whether the current gallery architecture and any individual project pages each serve a distinct purpose, using Phase 3 evidence rather than assuming one format is universally better.
• ☐ Review the existing example of 3-5 standalone services such as /wedding-photography and /headshots. A page may contain about 300 words and 4-8 images when useful, but pass or fail depends on whether it answers a real service decision.
• ☐ Check every important H1 against the service and location actually represented on the page.

Week 5: Structured data and local identity

• ☐ Compare any LocalBusiness markup with visible business information and remove unsupported properties.
• ☐ Compare the website, profiles, and active listings against one business-information reference record.
• ☐ Review the Google Business Profile for accurate category, contact, hours, address or service-area settings, photos, and service information.
• ☐ Validate rendered structured data and record errors or warnings that require action.

Week 6: Relevant listings

• ☐ Review 3-5 photography or local directories that are actually relevant to the business. Add or update a listing only when it can be kept accurate and serves a discovery, reputation, or verification purpose.
• ☐ Recheck live listings against the website's business information after changes publish.

Ongoing checks

• ☐ Add appropriate alt text when new portfolio images are published.
• ☐ Resize and compress new assets before or during upload based on the platform's real output.
• ☐ Review Search Console for new crawl or indexing issues and investigate only those that affect intended pages.
• ☐ Retest representative pages after design, plugin, theme, or gallery changes so regressions are caught with evidence.

Use image benchmarks as investigation triggers, not universal ranking thresholds. A photography site should deliver the smallest file that preserves the intended visual quality at the rendered size and device conditions. The earlier planning window of 2-3 weeks should be treated only as an implementation example.

Compression tools:

• Squoosh: Evidence: export a representative image with several settings and compare both file weight and visible quality. The previous example used 75-80% quality and showed a 4MB JPEG becoming 200-400KB WebP. Treat that as an example outcome, not a guarantee. Pass: the smaller derivative preserves acceptable visual detail for its display size. Fail: compression creates visible artifacts or the output is still unnecessarily large. Owner: photographer or content editor. Validation: compare the published asset in the browser.
• ImageOptim: Evidence: compare a copy of the source file before and after optimization. Pass: metadata or encoding overhead is reduced without harming the required output. Owner: photographer. Validation: compare file size and rendered image.
• Smush: Evidence: inspect what the WordPress plugin actually generates on upload and whether responsive sizes are served. Pass: derivatives are created and the live page delivers appropriate files. Fail: originals still dominate the network payload. Owner: WordPress administrator. Validation: inspect the network response after upload.

Previously published size references: earlier editorial guidance suggested under 150KB for some portrait images and 200-300KB for higher-detail work, and treated a homepage taking over 3 seconds as a reason to inspect image weight. These values require source reconciliation and should be used only as triage references, because acceptable size depends on dimensions, format, device, network, and visual requirements.

Lazy loading check: Evidence: open DevTools (F12 on Chrome), reload the page, and inspect when below-the-fold images are requested. Pass: offscreen images are deferred when that behavior is appropriate and the visible lead image is not delayed in a way that harms the experience. Fail: the gallery loads unnecessary offscreen assets immediately or a critical visible image is deferred incorrectly. Severity: medium to high on image-heavy pages. Owner: developer or platform administrator. Corrective action: use native browser behavior or a compatible implementation and exclude critical images when required. Validation: repeat the network test.

WebP check: Evidence: inspect the actual response format and fallback behavior across supported browsers. The earlier comparison described WebP as 25-35% smaller than JPEG at similar quality; preserve that as a historical benchmark requiring source reconciliation rather than a promised reduction. Pass: modern formats are served where they reduce transfer size without harming compatibility or presentation. Fail: format conversion adds complexity without measurable benefit or breaks image delivery. Owner: developer or platform configuration. Validation: compare file transfer and rendering on the browsers you support.