Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A 100-page SEO audit can uncover technical inconsistencies, but a checklist is a starting point—not proof of why pages are not performing. In a 2025 account, developer Khawaja Khurram reported finding canonical, title, internal-link, structured-data, and content issues across his coding platform. He also reported improvements after making changes, while the account does not establish that those changes caused more crawling or better search performance.
What the 100-page audit reported
Khurram said he had launched a free coding platform, built more than 100 pages, submitted a sitemap, and waited without seeing results. He then used a Python script to inspect pages. The following numbers are his reported findings and chosen audit criteria, not independently verified measurements or Google standards.
| Issue checked | Reported finding | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| Canonical URLs | 42 pages pointed to the wrong domain | A mismatch can send Google a confusing signal, but a canonical annotation is a hint, not a command. |
| Structured data | Every page in the audit lacked it | Structured data can clarify page meaning and may support eligibility for rich results; it does not guarantee those results. |
| Title length | 26 page titles were longer than 60 characters | Sixty characters was the author’s threshold, not a Google limit. |
| Internal links | 50 pages had none | Important pages should be discoverable through crawlable links, but there is no universal ideal number of links per page. |
| Content length | 8 pages had fewer than 300 words | Under 300 words was the author’s audit threshold. Google does not prescribe a preferred word count. |
How the script checked pages—and what it could miss
The example used Python’s requests library to fetch HTML and BeautifulSoup to parse it. It checked whether a title exceeded 60 characters, whether a canonical tag and a JSON-LD script existed, and whether fewer than three internal links had an href beginning with /. The author described running the checks over a sitemap and exporting issues to CSV.
That approach can help identify repeated, visible-in-HTML conditions across many URLs. But those checks are narrower than a complete technical audit: the example does not demonstrate robust URL normalization, JavaScript rendering, HTTP error handling, sitemap parsing, pagination, or checking which canonical Google actually selected. A reported tag’s presence also does not prove it is correct or valid.
Make a basic audit more reliable
- Record fetch failures and HTTP status codes so a missing tag is not confused with a page that could not be retrieved.
- Normalize URLs before comparing them: account for host, protocol, trailing slashes, query strings, and redirects.
- Check rendered content when important text or links are added by JavaScript.
- For canonical analysis, compare the declared canonical with redirects and sitemap URLs, then inspect Google’s selected canonical in Search Console.
- Use a consistent run and retain the CSV so you can reproduce and compare findings over time.
What changed after the fixes
Khurram’s 2025 account included these before-and-after figures, which are self-reported rather than independently audited.
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Pages with correct canonicals | 22 | 100 |
| Pages with JSON-LD | 0 | 100 |
| Average internal links per page | 0.4 | 5.2 |
| Pages with proper titles | 74 | 100 |
| Average word count | 280 | 420 |
He also reported that Google crawled roughly five times more pages per week afterward. The account does not establish a controlled comparison or prove that the changes caused the crawl increase, rankings, clicks, or traffic. Treat the figures as one site owner’s reported experience, not a forecast for another site.
Rank #2
How to act on the findings without turning them into SEO rules
Align canonical signals
Google treats redirects and rel="canonical" annotations as strong canonicalization signals, while sitemap inclusion is weaker. Google can combine signals, and it may select a different canonical URL from the one a site owner specifies. A wrong-domain canonical deserves investigation, but it does not mean a page can never rank. Explicit canonical preferences are not required for a site to do well. Google’s canonicalization guidance explains how these signals work.
Write distinct, descriptive titles
Use a concise title that accurately describes each page, and avoid vague, repetitive, or keyword-stuffed wording. Google does not set a fixed character maximum: title links are shortened as needed to fit a device and can be generated using the page’s title element, visible headings, anchor text, and other sources. Khurram’s 40–60-character advice is a personal heuristic, not a Google rule. See Google’s title-link documentation.
Connect important pages with useful links
Googlebot uses crawlable links to discover URLs, while descriptive anchor text helps people and search engines understand the destination. Google recommends linking each page a site owner cares about from at least one other page. It also says, “There’s no magical ideal number of links a given page should contain.” Khurram’s suggestion of four relevant links per page is his own recommendation, not an official target. Read Google’s link best practices.
Add structured data only when it fits the page
Structured data provides explicit clues about what a page is about and can make it eligible for certain rich results. Eligibility is not a promise that Google will show a rich result. Choose markup that accurately represents visible page content and validate its implementation rather than adding JSON-LD just to satisfy a page-count target. Google’s structured data introduction explains the role and limits of markup.
Improve content for usefulness, not a word target
A short page is not automatically low quality, and a long page is not automatically useful. Add the explanations, examples, or instructions readers need; remove material that does not serve them. Google says it has no preferred word count and frames search optimization as compatible with people-first content when it helps users and search engines understand a page. See Google’s guidance on creating helpful, reliable, people-first content.
When a script is enough—and when to use a crawler
A small script is a practical fit when you need repeatable checks on a manageable set of pages and can interpret the output. A dedicated crawler may be more suitable when you need deeper site discovery, rendered JavaScript, richer canonical or structured-data validation, or reporting that is easier to reproduce across larger audits. Decide based on the number of URLs and crawl depth, rendering needs, validation requirements, reporting and export needs, and cost. The example script is not a like-for-like evaluation of crawler tools.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Features Over 160 Latin Songs
- Arranged for C Instruments
- Standard Notation
- 48 Pages
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
