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
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.
In-house marketing leads who own organic performance, founders who inherited a site nobody has audited, and agency principals who need the technical layer handled without adding a specialist to payroll.
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.
Six faults are checked first, because each one is objectively measurable and cheap to get wrong: duplicated intent, crawlable URL variants, unverified redirects, metadata written twice, structured data that describes nothing visible, and a sitemap that no longer matches the site. No claim is made about how common they are on other sites.
Two service pages, an old landing page and a guide may answer the same buying question without distinct purposes. Review their content, links and available search data before choosing an owner. Consolidate genuine duplication; do not remove a useful page merely because its topic overlaps with another one.
Tracking parameters, filter combinations and session-tagged links get crawled as separate URLs. Wilde Digital found exactly this on its own site: contextual proposal and proof links exposed crawlable query variants, and the generators that produced them would have recreated the variants after any manual cleanup.
A rebuild can leave aliases pointing at aliases or old URLs returning unexpected errors. Check the actual response and final destination. Where an equivalent page exists, use a direct permanent redirect; where none exists, record an explicit retirement rather than sending every visitor to an unrelated service.
Repeated metadata can obscure the distinct purpose of different pages. Review whether the problem is duplicated text or duplicated intent. Write accurate titles and descriptions for the surviving pages, then check their actual output rather than assume every CMS field was rendered as expected.
Service or FAQ markup naming offers, questions or prices a visitor cannot find on the page is a liability, not a ranking lever. Schema is worth having when it describes content actually present, which is why this site fails its own build if a schema FAQ question is not visible in the page text.
Sitemaps listing redirected, noindexed or deleted URLs waste crawl attention and undermine the one file you control completely. The sitemap should be generated from the same source of truth as the pages, so it cannot drift once someone retires a route.
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 faults costing you the most, in priority order, with the evidence for each. 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.
The quote identifies any separately available work. Guaranteed outcomes, link buying and advertising management are not offered.
Access first, then measurement, then a prioritized findings list, then implementation in cycles, then verification against the published output. Nothing is reported as fixed because it was edited in a source file; it counts as fixed when the deployed page, redirect or sitemap entry proves it.
Start where the risk suits you. The site check is a fixed $400 for one site, returned within two business days, and needs no call — just the link. The full audit is $1,500 USD for the agreed site scope. Ongoing implementation from $1,000 USD per month is available after a completed project, not as a first purchase. The quote names the boundary, deliverables and dates before work starts, and none of it is an unlimited monthly repair commitment.
| Work | Published rate | What the rate covers | What moves the price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inquiry 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, and the three faults costing the most, in priority order. Delivered as a one-page report with the evidence for each finding. | 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. |
Timelines are indicative planning estimates for the scope described, not delivery commitments. Payment milestones, revision allowance, cancellation and handover terms are agreed in your written quote. Hosting, domains, licenses, stock imagery and advertising spend sit outside the project rate.
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.
A 43-rule website analysis engine that produces the same prioritized findings every run, with bounded AI explanation.
Each example states what it is and what was verified. Client performance data stays with the client.
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 local rebuild coordinates page definitions, internal links and a migration map. The historical sitemap is retained as an input to verification so an old URL must be accounted for as a page, a redirect or an explicit retirement. The work is local until publication is authorized; it is not presented as a completed production migration.
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 it can be reviewed before 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.
What this example does not show is a ranking or revenue outcome. The rebuilt site is not published, the consolidation has not been measured in the field, and there is no field Core Web Vitals data for it. What it does show is the method, applied to a site whose owner cannot hide behind a client NDA.
Technical work is either a one-off audit with an implementation window, or a monthly cycle with one agreed priority per month. Both end with a written record of what changed and what the data did afterwards, and monthly work has a notice period written into the quote rather than assumed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.