Technical SEO checks on every article —
not just your homepage
Titles, metas, headings, internal links: the quiet killers
of rankings. Checked continuously, fixed inside the same brief.
ORIGINAL
The meeting was very long and not useful to most people.
REFINED
The meeting ran overlong and added little value.
DEATH BY A THOUSAND METAS
No single technical issue
kills an article. Together, they do
A weak title here, a missing meta there, a heading structure that made sense three edits ago, internal links pointing at retired pages. Each one costs a little. Across 300 articles and four years, the little adds up to page 2 — where less than 1% of search clicks go [SEO consensus].
Accumulated, not created
Technical debt in content isn't a mistake anyone made — it's what happens when 300 articles are edited by different hands over years.
Below the crawler's radar
Site audits catch broken pages. They're not built to judge whether this article's title still matches what it ranks for.
Never anyone's ticket
A missing meta on a 2022 post is nobody's job. So it stays missing — until the article slips and someone asks why.
What's checked, per article
Every article in the library, every audit pass — not a quarterly crawl
The metadata layer: title tag quality and query match, meta description presence and fit, canonical URL correctness, robots directives that quietly deindex things they shouldn't.
The structure layer: H1 presence and uniqueness, heading hierarchy (the H2/H3 logic that survives years of edits — or doesn't), word count and reading depth versus what the query deserves, schema markup presence.
The connection layer: internal links in and out — orphaned articles, links pointing at retired or redirected pages, outbound link health, plus image alt coverage across the article.
Every finding lands as a specific, per-article item with the fix spelled out — not a site-wide score that tells you something, somewhere, is suboptimal.
This is not a site crawler — and doesn't replace one
Screaming Frog and site audits check whether pages work. This checks whether articles compete
- Judged per article, in context: does this title match what this page ranks for?
- Runs continuously alongside performance, ICP, and brand checks
- Findings feed straight into the article's brief — fix ships with the rewrite
- Prioritised by the article's opportunity, not alphabetically
- Scoped to your content library — the pages that earn traffic
- Judged per URL, contextless: title exists / title missing
- Run when someone schedules a crawl
- Findings land in a report — fixing them is a separate project
- Prioritised by error type, across templates and system pages
- Scoped to everything — including the 4,000 URLs that don't matter
NO SEPARATE TICKET
The fix lands in the same brief
and the same draft
Technical findings don't go to a separate backlog. When an article is flagged, its technical corrections are part of its brief — and the updated draft ships with them applied, pending your approval like everything else.
One workflow, four dimensions
Performance, ICP fit, brand standards, and technical health are fixed together, in one reviewed rewrite — not four tools and four tickets.
Checked again on the way out
Every draft passes a technical SEO review before it reaches your queue — findings surface as suggestions beside the text, visible for your judgement.
Approved by you, always
Technical fixes are still changes to your content. Nothing ships without a named approval — same rule as everywhere else in the product.
How technical checks work
The honest answers.
See what four years of quiet debt looks like
Book a 30-minute demo — we'll run the technical pass on your real library and show you the per-article findings, fixes included.
✓ 30 minutes ✓ Per-article findings ✓ Nothing changes without approval