Posted by Duncan Morris
Will and I have a recurring argument about what should and shouldn’t be in a site review. My argument has been, and remains that before you can do a proper site review you need to do keyword research, in order to validate that the site architecture is correct. Whereas Will says his argument is that you can separate a “site review” into two separate parts: technical review and keyword targeting review – which could be separate deliverables and for only the second of which do you need keyword research.
I have been doing a fair few site reviews recently and one thing has stuck out. Yes, almost every site I’ve ever looked at has technical issues that should be fixed. Yes, people are still using font tags in a deliberate attempt not to pass semantic information to the search engines , and yes some people still insist on creating a hideous flash monstrosity. However, the biggest issue (ignoring the hideous flash monstrosity which deserves everything it gets) is not something that can be fixed by tweaking a template here, or adding a mod re-write rule there.
I’d love to stir this up into a big issue, but unfortunately it really isn’t. You see, Will knows i’m right but never likes to admit he’s wrong. Will wants us to first do and send the client a technical site review. After that he argues we can look at the keyphrase research and information architecture. I’m a firm believer that step one should be keyphrase research which can then feed into a site review which not only looks at if there is a h1 tag on the page, but whether the keywords in the h1 tag are the right keywords.