标签：#technicalseo

Plenty of SEO audits end with a single tool report. You run Lighthouse, screenshot Search Console coverage, save a "12 issues found" panel, and call it done. The trouble is that most audits finished that way silently revert within three months. Someone publishes a new post, refactors a component, swaps a font, and the issue quietly comes back. Nobody notices. Over the last five days I actually audited my four-language blog (ko/ja/en/zh, 298 posts per language). Five items, all fixed. But what I really want to talk about isn't what I fixed. It's that the five fixes mattered less than the build gates that keep them from ever returning. An audit should be a loop, not an event. Why a one-report audit always comes back Most technical SEO issues aren't "the code is wrong." They're "an invariant was never enforced anywhere." Take a clear rule: a published post must not link internally to a draft. Obvious enough. But if a human has to remember that every time, then the moment a recommendation generator pulls in one draft slug, a 404 is born. The report catches that 404 and shows it to you, but it does nothing to prevent the next one. So I ran the audit as a three-step loop. Measure. Fix the biggest item first. Then turn that item into a checker and nail it to the build . Skip the third step and the first two become a chore you repeat every six months. Once a gate is in place, the same class of problem makes npm run build fail. A pipeline enforces the rule, not human memory. This isn't a new invention. It's the same logic by which tests prevent bug regressions, applied to the content and markup layer. It's just oddly rare in SEO, where most teams leave "SEO checks" as a quarterly manual task. The five items I actually ran over five days Measurement first. Each item got a before/after in numbers, not a vibe that "things feel better" but reproducible figures. (The raw log of all five lives on the improvement history page too.) Date Item Before After Gate 07-02 relatedPosts int

We run 10+ web products. For years our SEO tooling was a $100+/month subscription we mostly used for one job: technical audits. The keyword and backlink dashboards sat untouched while the bill renewed every month. At some point the math stopped making sense, so we rebuilt our stack around what we actually use. Here's the honest breakdown — what we kept free, what we replaced, and why. What a technical audit actually needs to check Before picking tools, it helps to know what you're auditing. The technical layer is finite and well-defined: Crawlability — robots.txt, broken internal links, redirect chains Indexability — noindex tags, canonical correctness, soft 404s, orphan pages Sitemaps — only canonical, indexable, 200-status URLs On-page — titles, meta descriptions, one H1, valid structured data International — hreflang reciprocity (if you're multilingual) Performance — Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, INP) That's it. None of it requires a keyword database or a backlink index — the two things you're really paying $100+/mo for in the big suites. The free tools that cover most of it Google Search Console is non-negotiable and free. The Pages report is the source of truth for what's indexed and why the rest isn't. PageSpeed Insights (free) gives you real Core Web Vitals. Screaming Frog's free tier crawls up to 500 URLs, which is plenty for small sites. For a long time that was our whole stack: GSC + PageSpeed + free Screaming Frog. If your site is under 500 pages, you may not need anything else. Where it broke down for us The free Screaming Frog cap (500 URLs) is the wall. Several of our sites are bigger, and re-auditing them meant either the paid Screaming Frog licence (annual) or going back to a monthly suite. Both felt wrong for something we run after every deploy. So we built our own crawler for the technical layer — and then, honestly, turned it into a product because other people we talked to had the same problem. It does the whole checklist above across the entire sit