Service · 01
Technical SEO for sites that have to be crawled, rendered and trusted
Crawl and index integrity, rendering, internal architecture and migrations — for pharmaceutical, B2B and multilingual sites across Egypt and the Gulf. This is the layer everything else stands on, and where almost every underperforming site I audit is actually failing.
72 named engagements since 2012 · SEO Head at Eye Advertising · SEO & GEO instructor at Learn N’ Digital · Arabic and English
The problem
Most sites do not have a content problem
When a pharmaceutical or B2B site underperforms, the brief that arrives is almost always about content: we need more articles, better keywords, a blog strategy. In practice the failure is earlier in the chain, and no amount of content fixes it.
A page has to be reachable before it can be parsed, parsed before it can be ranked, and ranked before a generative engine will ever read it. Break any of those and everything downstream is wasted spend. The failures I find, in the order they matter:
- Unreachable — robots directives, parameter traps, orphaned sections, or crawl budget spent on faceted URLs nobody wants.
- Unrenderable — content that exists only after client-side JavaScript runs, so retrieval sees an empty shell.
- Unreadable — a flat or contradictory architecture where nothing signals which page is the authority on a topic.
- Self-competing — four pages targeting one question, splitting the signals between them.
- Recently migrated — and the redirect map lost a third of the equity that nobody has measured since.
Regulated sites have a sixth problem: the fix has to survive a med-legal review cycle, which means the specification must be precise enough for a developer to implement without re-opening the content question.
What is included
Six deliverables, not a report
Every engagement produces artefacts your team can act on. A PDF of observations is not a deliverable.
Crawl and index diagnostics
A full crawl reconciled against Search Console and server logs where available, so we are looking at what Google actually holds rather than what a tool guessed. Includes AI crawler access — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot and Google-Extended — which is usually misconfigured by accident rather than by decision.
You get: an indexation map, a list of what is excluded and why, and the directive changes to make
Rendering audit
Whether your content exists in the served HTML or only after hydration, tested per template rather than per page. This single check explains more invisible sites than any other.
You get: a rendered-versus-source comparison per template, with the failing templates flagged
Information architecture and internal linking
Which page should be the authority on each topic, whether your internal links agree, and where equity is being spent on pages that will never convert.
You get: an architecture diagram and an internal linking plan with an anchor-text map
Migration planning and recovery
Pre-migration parity checks and a redirect map, or post-migration forensics if the site has already moved and the traffic has not come back.
You get: a URL-level redirect map and a parity checklist signed off before launch
Core Web Vitals and crawl budget
Field data first, lab data second. Fixes ranked by effort against the number of URLs affected, so the cheap wins are obvious.
You get: a prioritised fix list with the affected template and the expected field impact
Implementation specification
Written so a developer can build from it without interpreting it, and so a regulatory reviewer can see that nothing changes a claim.
You get: a ticket-ready spec per fix, in the order the fixes must be applied
How it runs
Four stages, in this order
01 · Week 1
Crawl and baseline
A full technical crawl, Search Console reconciliation, log review where logs exist, and a rendering test per template.
02 · Week 2
Diagnosis and sequence
What is broken, why it matters, and the order to fix it. The order is the deliverable.
03 · Week 2–3
Specification
Ticket-ready specs your developers or agency can implement without re-opening the content question.
04 · After implementation
Verify
Re-crawl after implementation, confirm the fix landed, and measure against the stage-one baseline.
Fit
Who this is for — and who it is not
A good fit if:
- You have a site of real size — hundreds to tens of thousands of URLs — where architecture decisions change outcomes.
- You are in a regulated or evidence-bound sector, so content moves slowly and the technical layer is the fastest lever you have.
- You run Arabic and English versions, or several country variants, and are not certain hreflang and canonicals agree.
- You migrated in the last year and performance has not recovered.
- You have an in-house or agency team who can implement — I specify and review, they build.
Not a good fit if:
- You have a twenty-page brochure site. You do not need this; you need three fixes and six months of leaving it alone, and I will tell you that rather than sell you a programme.
- You want rankings guaranteed. I guarantee the diagnosis, the sequence and the measurement design. What happens next depends on competition and on what actually gets implemented.
- You want GEO work without fixing the foundation first. That is a layer with nothing underneath it, and I will not sell it.
Arabic and English
Bilingual sites are a different technical problem
Arabic is not a translation layer on top of an English site. RTL templates break differently, Arabic URLs get mangled by encoding, and hreflang between ar-EG and ar-SA is routinely wrong in a way no English-only audit would catch — the two markets do not search the same way, and treating them as one locale costs you both.
I have run multilingual architecture across five language versions and Arabic content programmes for pharmaceutical brands in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The audit covers both language trees, and the specification can be handed to a developer in either language.
Questions
Technical SEO questions I get asked
The audit and specification run about two to three weeks for a typical mid-size site. Implementation time depends on your development cycle, not on me — some teams ship in a fortnight, regulated clients sometimes take a quarter. Verification happens after implementation, against the baseline taken at the start.
Either. Most of my work is diagnostic: I specify the fix precisely enough that your developers or your existing agency can implement it, then I review what shipped. I can also implement directly on WordPress. I would rather brief your team than replace them.
Yes, and staging is often better, because we can test fixes before they reach production and before anything needs regulatory sign-off. I will need crawl access and, ideally, Search Console and server logs for the live site to compare against.
Test it per template rather than per page, comparing served HTML against the rendered DOM. If content only exists after hydration, the fix is usually server-side rendering or pre-rendering for the templates that matter — not for the whole site, which is where this gets expensive unnecessarily.
The audit is the first stage of this, not a separate product. What makes it an engagement rather than a report is the specification and the verification — a list of problems with no implementable fix and no re-measurement is where most audits die.
Yes, and it is a genuine specialism rather than an add-on. Arabic URL encoding, RTL template breakage, and hreflang between Egyptian and Gulf Arabic variants are the three that cause the most damage and are most often missed.
It is the precondition, not the whole job. Generative engines overwhelmingly read pages that conventional retrieval already found, so a site that cannot be crawled or rendered will not be cited either. Once the foundation holds, GEO work makes the content quotable.
Free AI visibility audit
Find out what is actually broken before you buy a fix
The audit tells you whether your site is reachable, renderable and coherent, and which three technical fixes would move the needle first. You get the findings whether or not we work together.
Three working days, by email. No call unless you want one, and no follow-up sequence. What the audit covers.
Thank you for your response. ✨
Start with an audit, not a retainer
Fixed scope, fixed price. You get the findings whether or not we work together afterwards.
Related:
Generative Engine Optimization
All six services
72 engagements since 2012