SEO analysis · Reviewing reports
Turn an analysis suggestion
into a clear brief.
You have received an SEO report and need to commission improvements. What matters now is which recommendation can be understood and sensibly defined. This review guide shows how to assess a single technical suggestion and accept its implementation.
The image example was freely composed for illustration. It does not describe a client case or contain measured results.
Four details before you decide
Ask for these details when a recommendation is unclear. They show whether a specific task already exists or an investigation is needed first.
- Affected location: Which page address and which individual resource, such as an image file, are meant?
- Review conditions: When was the review performed, in which device view and with which tool? Was the page accessed without logging in?
- Evidence: Which observation supports the suggestion? Ask to see the relevant location and have assumptions identified as such.
- Acceptance: Which limited change is proposed, and how will you then know it was implemented correctly?
An overall tool score does not replace these details. You need a clear connection to your page.
Example: ‘The image file is too large’
In this example, a report flags the large photo on a service page. First ask which file was actually loaded during the page visit examined. Does the suggestion concern that delivered variant or only the original in the media library?
Also have it recorded where the image appears and what connection the review shows with loading time. Simply describing it as ‘too large’ is not a sufficient brief. Unsuitable image dimensions, a heavy file and a faulty mobile display are different observations.
If the review confirms that an unnecessarily large file is being delivered, this single image can be edited first. Afterwards, check that the right image is assigned, the crop is correct and the visible quality is appropriate on mobile phones and desktops. A blanket conversion of the entire media library would be an additional assignment with its own review requirements.
Which decision fits the evidence?
Implement
The affected file is clearly identified, the finding is understandable and the change is manageable. Record the scope and acceptance criteria before editing begins.
Check first
There is only a warning or score. First commission the missing clarification: which specific resource causes which observable disadvantage?
Defer
The recommendation is outdated, concerns a page that will soon be replaced or depends on a pending design decision. Document the reason and the trigger for a further review.
Acceptance belongs in the brief
Record the page address, image file, initial finding, agreed change and responsible person. Repeat the appropriate check under conditions as comparable as possible and inspect the presentation. Keep a restorable original version until the change has been checked.
Technically completed image optimisation does not yet prove better rankings or additional enquiries. Separate acceptance of the work from subsequent observation of your website goals.
You can find the scope of a more comprehensive examination at SEO Agency Switzerland: SEO audit.
Assess a recommendation together
Would you like to discuss an existing analysis suggestion? When you get in touch, provide the affected page address and the outstanding question.
