Important pages and their CSS/JS are not blocked by robots.txt
Evidence: URL Inspection shows “Crawl allowed? Yes” for each key template; robots.txt report has no errors. Google: robots.txt introduction
Mark every check as Pass, Fail or Not tested, rate its severity, attach evidence from an official tool, and give it an owner. Start with crawl access and indexing, compare raw and rendered HTML, then move to canonicals, page experience and structured data.
Pass, Fail or Not tested. Nothing passes without evidence.
How much a failure blocks crawling, indexing or users.
A dated screenshot, export or report from an official or trusted tool.
One named role responsible for the next action and the re-test.
Evidence: URL Inspection shows “Crawl allowed? Yes” for each key template; robots.txt report has no errors. Google: robots.txt introduction
Evidence: Crawl export of status codes for all sitemap and linked URLs, dated. Google: technical requirements
Evidence: URL Inspection live test succeeds; server or CDN logs show Googlebot requests answered with 200. Google: technical requirements
Evidence: URL Inspection “Indexing allowed? Yes” for key templates. Note: if robots.txt blocks a page, Google cannot see its noindex. Search Console Help: URL Inspection
Evidence: Screenshot of the Page indexing report with reasons for any excluded service or product pages. Search Console Help: URL Inspection
Evidence: Sitemaps report shows “Success”; sample of 20 sitemap URLs all return 200 and self-canonicalise. Google: sitemaps overview
Evidence: URL Inspection: user-declared canonical matches Google-selected canonical for key pages. Google: consolidate duplicate URLs
Evidence: Header check of all four variants showing a single 301 hop to the preferred URL. Google: consolidate duplicate URLs
Evidence: Review of robots.txt and noindex rules against duplicate URL patterns. Google: consolidate duplicate URLs
Evidence: URL Inspection › View crawled page › HTML contains the main heading and body copy of each template. Google: JavaScript SEO basics
Evidence: Rendered HTML sample: menu, footer and in-content links use <a href>, not click handlers. Google: JavaScript SEO basics
Evidence: Side-by-side of view-source and rendered HTML for each template; differences listed. Google: JavaScript SEO basics
Evidence: Core Web Vitals report (field data) screenshot for mobile and desktop, with URL groups failing. Google: Core Web Vitals
Evidence: Crawl export filtered for http:// resources on https:// pages. Google: page experience
Evidence: Mobile rendered screenshot per template compared with desktop. Google: page experience
Evidence: Rich Results Test or Schema validator output per template; each marked item is visible on the page. Google: structured data policies
Your entries stay in this browser tab. Nothing is saved or sent.
Raw HTML is what the server sends. Rendered HTML is what exists after JavaScript runs. Google says content missing from the rendered HTML cannot be indexed, and links are only discovered from <a> elements with an href.
<head> <title>Web Development | MTI Tech</title> <link rel="canonical" href="https://mtitech.co/web-development"> <link rel="canonical" href="https://mtitech.co/"> ← changed by script</head><body> <div id="app"></div> ← empty until JavaScript runs <div id="app"><h1>Web Development Services</h1><p>…</p></div> <span onclick="go('/pricing')">Pricing</span> ← not a crawlable link</body>
Acceptable if Google renders it, but check the rendered HTML in URL Inspection to confirm the main content is there.
The raw and rendered pages disagree. Put the correct canonical in the raw HTML and keep it unchanged.
Google discovers links from <a href> elements. Replace spans and buttons used for navigation.
Browser view-source, or a crawler with JavaScript rendering off.
Search Console URL Inspection › View crawled page › HTML, or the Rich Results Test.
Good evidence is dated, specific to a URL or template, and comes from a tool someone else can re-run.
“Sitemap is fine.”
Strong“Sitemaps report, 28 Sep 2026: status Success, 142 URLs discovered; 20-URL sample all return 200.”
“Pages are indexed.”
Strong“URL Inspection for /services/web-development/: URL is on Google; user-declared and Google-selected canonical match.”
“Speed is good.”
Strong“Core Web Vitals report, mobile, field data: 0 poor URLs; 3 URL groups need improvement for LCP.”
Anything that stops key pages being crawled, rendered or indexed.
Wrong canonicals, broken redirects, blocked resources, HTTPS problems.
Collect evidence before assuming anything passes.
Page experience, sitemap hygiene and structured data.
Every fix gets a new piece of evidence and a date.
Google notes that good Core Web Vitals results do not guarantee top rankings, and relevance still comes first. Google: page experience
Short answers, grounded in Google’s documentation.
Technical SEO is the work that lets search engines crawl, render and index a site correctly: access, status codes, canonical URLs, rendering, page experience and structured data. It removes barriers; it does not replace useful content.
Review the critical and high checks at least quarterly, and re-run the full checklist after a redesign, platform migration, template change or major plugin update.
It can remove problems that stop pages from being crawled, indexed or served well. Google notes that good Core Web Vitals results do not guarantee top rankings, and it always seeks to show the most relevant content.
It means nobody has collected evidence yet. A check without evidence should never be marked as passed, even if the site looks fine.
Yes. MTI Tech can run this checklist, record the evidence, assign owners and implement fixes as part of our SEO services.
We run the checks, attach the proof, assign owners and fix what fails. For the reasoning behind each check and an example issue log, read our technical SEO audit blueprint.