Opportunity Scanner
A 43-rule website analysis engine that produces the same prioritized findings every run, with bounded AI explanation.
Service
A technical SEO audit that names the faults and the fixes, in priority order
Before adding pages, check whether the existing site can be crawled, indexed and understood. Wilde Digital reviews technical faults and overlapping intent, prioritizes the changes and verifies the actual output. The deliverable is an audit you can act on, with implementation available separately—not a promised ranking or a larger sitemap.
Start an inquiryAll rates and terms
- $400 USD per siteFixed one-page check: does the form store a lead, can the selling pages be indexed and surfaced in AI answers, what to fix first.
- $1,500 USD per agreed auditFor the full audit and prioritized findings.
- No ranking promisePosition, clicks and citations are outcomes, not deliverables.
Is this the right work for your site?
This work fits an existing site with indexing problems, a migration to verify or overlapping pages that need a clear owner. It can also identify launch-blocking technical defects. Content quality is assessed separately: a crawlable page still needs useful information, and technical repair is not a substitute for a credible offer.
- Search Console shows impressions across many URLs and clicks on almost none of them.
- Two or more pages answer the same buying question, and you cannot say which one should win.
- The site has been rebuilt or replatformed at least once, and nobody has verified what happened to the old URLs.
- You need the reasoning written down, because someone above you will review the decision to remove pages.
- You are willing to publish fewer, stronger pages instead of adding more.
What do you actually get?
Two fixed deliverables. The $400 site check is one page: whether your inquiry form actually stores a submission, whether the pages that sell can be crawled and indexed, and the three highest-priority problems found, with evidence and recommended next steps. The $1,500 audit is the full version: a complete crawl and index review, findings ordered by severity and effort, and the exact change proposed for each one. Implementation is separate and optional in both cases, so you can hand either document to your own developer.
- Crawl and index review: status codes, canonical tags, duplicate and parameterized variants, redirect chains, orphaned pages, accidental noindex.
- Intent map of the current URL set: which page owns which buying question, and where two or more pages compete.
- A consolidation plan naming the surviving page for each intent, the redirect target for every retired URL, and the URLs that should return 410 instead.
- Page-level metadata review: unique titles and descriptions, one H1 per page, heading order without skipped levels.
- Structured data review, checked against what a visitor can actually see on the page.
- Internal link review so evidence, pricing and service pages reinforce the surviving owner instead of the retired duplicates.
- Sitemap, robots and crawler-access review, including a documented decision on which AI crawlers are allowed.
- Core Web Vitals field data reviewed where Search Console has it, plus layout-shift causes found in the markup, such as images published without intrinsic width and height.
- A prioritized findings list with severity and effort, so the cheap high-impact items are obvious.
- Verification pass after implementation: re-crawl, index checks, and confirmation in the published output rather than the source.
What does this cost, and how long does it take?
| Work | Published rate | What the rate covers | What moves the price |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI visibility and indexing check | $400 USD per site Returned within two business days of the site link and form details. | One written check of a single site: whether the inquiry form actually stores a submission, whether the pages that sell can be crawled and indexed, whether the site is eligible to appear in AI answers — indexing and snippet eligibility, the Search Console generative-AI inclusion setting, and the robots, CDN or firewall layers that can still block a search or assistant crawler — and the three highest-priority problems found, with evidence and recommended next steps. Delivered as a one-page report. Eligibility is not a placement promise. | Fixed price for one site. Repairs, implementation and any second site are quoted separately. |
| Technical SEO audit | $1,500 USD per agreed audit Audit window agreed after site size and access are confirmed. | Crawl and index review, intent and redirect mapping, canonical and metadata review, structured data and internal links, with prioritized findings and proposed fixes. | Site scope, rendering complexity and available search data. Implementation, content rewrites and paid tooling are separate. |
| Ongoing implementation after a project | From $1,000 USD per month Optional monthly cycle with deliverables and notice terms in the quote. | One agreed priority per month — technical or content — implemented and verified, with a report separating what changed from what was observed. Available after a completed project, not as a first purchase. | The size of the agreed priority, platform access and implementation dependencies. Rankings, traffic and revenue are not guaranteed. |
The written quote confirms the scope, schedule, payment milestones, revisions, cancellation and handover terms. Ongoing work is optional and separately scoped.
What technical work has actually been done?
The first-hand example is Wilde Digital’s own site. Its rebuild assigns an owner to each service intent, records redirect and retirement decisions and checks the generated output. The retired ROI calculator illustrates a deliberate 410 rather than an unrelated redirect. These are implementation decisions, not evidence of an improved ranking.
Each example states what it is and what was verified. Client performance data stays with the client.
Send the domain and the access question
Send the domain, what you think should be found and whether Search Console and hosting access are available. Describe any recent migration or indexing change. That is enough to begin deciding whether an audit is warranted; access permissions and the final scope are agreed before work starts.
Scope boundaries and exclusions
Not a fit for guaranteed positions, link buying or a monthly rank chart without implementation. Page evidence and answer structure can be scoped through AI search optimization. Store-specific implementation is covered by Shopify development; a new theme is not automatically the fix for an indexing problem.
- Any guarantee of ranking position, impressions, clicks, AI citation, traffic or revenue.
- Link buying, guest-post networks and directory submissions.
- Bulk content production. Writing priority pages is quoted separately per brief.
- Paid search and paid social management.
- Third-party tool subscriptions such as rank trackers and commercial crawlers.
- Recovery of historical data where Search Console or analytics access was never set up.
The quote identifies any separately available work and third-party costs.
Delivery and handover
- Access. Search Console, analytics, the CMS or repository, and the hosting or CDN configuration where redirects live. Missing access is recorded as missing rather than guessed at, because a redirect audit without the redirect layer is speculation.
- Measurement. Export queries and pages, separate branded from non-branded, and record the current position and click distribution before anything changes. Without that baseline, later movement cannot be attributed to the work or to anything else.
- Audit. Full crawl, index-state comparison, duplicate-intent analysis, redirect-map verification, metadata and structured-data checks, and a review of what the surviving pages would need to deserve the traffic.
- Findings. A written list ordered by severity and effort: what is broken, what it plausibly affects, and the specific change proposed. No score out of a hundred, because a composite number hides which fix matters.
- Implementation. Changes made in priority order, one cycle at a time, with consolidation decisions applied as single-hop redirects and updated internal links rather than left as recommendations.
- Verification. Re-crawl, index checks, and inspection of the published output. Submitting a URL to an indexing endpoint returns a receipt, not proof of indexing, and it is reported as a receipt.
- Report. What changed, what the data did afterwards, what is still blocked, and the next priority. Implementation and outcome are reported separately so neither is mistaken for the other.
Handover includes the agreed source or access, documentation and verification notes. The quote sets any optional support terms.
An engagement can stop at the audit. Optional implementation starts at $1,000 USD per month with one agreed priority per cycle, and notice terms live in the quote. If the evidence points to unclear content or a broken inquiry path rather than a crawl problem, the report says so. That observation does not justify selling another month of unrelated technical work.
What this looked like on this site
Wilde Digital applied this method to its own fragmented site. The owner reported roughly fifty-four URLs, almost no non-branded clicks, overlapping buying questions and place-name pages ranking between positions sixty and ninety-eight. These are reported Search Console observations, not measurements repeated for this page or evidence of a successful migration.
The rebuild coordinates page definitions, internal links and a migration map, and it is live. The migration is complete: the site moved from wildedigital.ca to wildedigital.agency, and the old domain answers with permanent redirects. The move was made to remove a country-code domain signal from a business that works internationally. The historical sitemap is retained as an input to verification, so every old URL must be accounted for as a page, a redirect or an explicit retirement before a build passes.
The ROI calculator was retired rather than redirected because its modeled figures had no measured basis and no current page was an equivalent. That illustrates the decision rule: preserving an old link does not justify implying that a different service answers the same question. The map records the chosen treatment, so each decision stays reviewable after launch.
The rules are enforced by tooling rather than by memory, and the two layers are separate. The build refuses to write the site at all if a redirect target is itself a redirect source, so chains cannot survive a build. The audit that runs on the generated output then fails if a page has more than one H1, if a canonical points anywhere but its own URL, if two pages share a title or description, if an internal link points at a redirect source, if a schema FAQ question or answer is not visible in the page text, or if an image is published without width and height attributes. Every image dimension is recorded once in a single checked-in map, measured from the file rather than guessed, and the renderer throws on any image missing from that map — so no page can ship a ratio nobody checked.
The completed migration demonstrates the method on Wilde Digital’s own site. Its effect on rankings, traffic, revenue and Core Web Vitals has not been measured here.
Questions buyers actually ask
- Will removing pages lose the traffic they already get?
Yes, removing or moving a page can change its traffic. Review the old URL’s purpose and available performance before choosing a replacement. A direct permanent redirect is appropriate when an equivalent exists; it does not guarantee that rankings or clicks stay unchanged. If no equivalent exists, record the retirement and its trade-off explicitly.
For a retired page without a replacement, both 404 and 410 tell Google that the content is unavailable. Google documents the same handling for 4xx responses other than 429. Wilde Digital uses 410 to record deliberate retirement, not to promise faster removal or a ranking benefit.
- How is this different from an SEO tool report?
A crawler produces a list of issues. This produces a decision for each one: which page owns each buying question, what happens to the URLs that lose, and in what order the work is worth doing. The tooling used to gather findings is deliberately deterministic — Opportunity Scanner, a Wilde Digital internal project, applies 43 rules across six categories so the same page produces the same findings on every run — and the commitment is that a person reviews every finding before it reaches you, because a rule engine finds candidates and does not decide what matters for your business.
- How long before anything changes in search?
There is no guaranteed date. Google’s current guidance notes that recrawling can take days to months depending on the site and page. Track available index-state and performance data rather than promise a result in a fixed number of days. Implementation, indexing and ranking are separate observations.
- Can you promise a position, or a place in AI answers?
No. Google documents ordinary indexing and snippet eligibility for its AI search features, with no additional technical requirements. The commitment here is the agreed audit, implementation and verification. AI search optimization is separately scoped content and evidence work, not an extra fee that buys guaranteed placement.
- Do you need my developer, or do you make the changes?
Either. With repository or CMS access, Wilde Digital implements the changes and verifies them in the published output. Without it, you get the same findings list with the specific change for each item written out, and your developer implements it — the audit is yours outright, and buying implementation is optional. Redirect work usually needs whoever controls the hosting or CDN configuration, so that access is identified during scoping rather than assumed.
- What if the real problem is the content, not the technical layer?
Then the audit says so and the recommendation is content work, not a technical retainer. A crawlable, canonical, consolidated page with nothing specific on it still has nothing a buyer or an answer engine can use. The findings list separates technical faults from content gaps for exactly this reason, and the cheaper correct recommendation is the one you get.