SEO Site Checkup offers an intriguing approach to website analysis, spotlighting both strengths and areas where its methodology may not fully serve the average business owner’s needs.

For this evaluation we used https://rainbowplumbingnj.com/ and the tool is located here: https://seositecheckup.com/analysis. You can view the PDF of the report here.

Here’s an overview based on specific sections of its report:

Poor

• HTTP/2 Utilization: Conflicting reports on HTTP/2 usage suggest inaccuracies in the tool’s analysis, indicating a potential oversight.
• Distorted Images Advisory: Flags a non-existent issue of distorted images as a priority, despite no evidence on the site, highlighting a misdirected focus.
• “Rel=noopener” or “rel=noreferrer” Advice: This detail, while technically sound, is overly minute and unlikely to significantly impact site performance.
• HTML Page Size Concern: Marks the site down for exceeding a seemingly arbitrary data limit by 20.89kb, a difference imperceptible even on slow connections. This casts some doubt on the test’s relevance.
• Page Objects Count: Criticizes modern websites for having over 20 resources, not considering the common use of CDNs, which doesn’t align with current web practices.
• CDN Usage Recommendation: Questions the necessity of CDNs for all sites, ignoring cases where direct hosting may suffice, especially for sites with unique visitor profiles.
• Render Blocking Resources Critique: This common fail point for many websites, including major ones, suggests an unrealistic standard for most, particularly WordPress sites.

Fair

• Meta Title Test: The advice to limit title lengths to 70 characters is noted but overstated. Exceeding this limit with less crucial text doesn’t harm SEO, but the way that SEO Site Checker’s test displays this information makes it seem more important than it really is.
• Keywords Cloud Test: Lacks substantial value, serving more as an aesthetic filler than a practical SEO tool.
• Responsive and Alt Image Tests: This test highlights minor issues without specifying the quantity in which these issues occur, which makes it difficult to actually gauge the severity of the issue, or formulate a plan to fix it.
• Load Speed Metrics: Essential metrics like First Contentful Paint are undervalued by their placement in the report. This strikes us as a poor choice, because these insights color how other metrics will be evaluated,  and therefore, prioritizing these metrics could better guide optimization efforts.

OK

• Issues to Fix Section: The concept of highlighting high-priority items is commendable, yet its execution falls short by not accurately prioritizing the most impactful fixes for optimizing inbound leads.
• Social Media Test: Grants a pass for merely linking to Facebook. We find this to be a more pragmatic approach than other online SEO analysis tools we’ve reviewed. However, the direct impact of a business’s social media activity on their website’s search engine rankings is questionable, calling the relevance of this text in to question.
• Image Metadata Test: Delves into detail with image metadata optimization, a task not immediately crucial for beginners but valuable for deep optimization.

Great

• Common SEO Issues Section: Showcases meta title and description evaluations directly, offering a transparent and helpful view that is easy to understand.
• Google Search Results Preview: The visual representation of how information appears in Google search is an excellent tool for illustrating the impact of meta tags.
• Most Common Keywords Test: Provides a nuanced explanation of keyword relevance, moving beyond simple density calculations to more sophisticated analysis.
• Keyword Usage Test: Delivers actionable insights on keyword placement. We particularly like how this test focuses on genuinely relevant keywords.
• Site Loading Speed Test: Highlights site speed as a critical performance factor. This is a crucial inclusion for comprehensive SEO analysis.
• URL Canonicalization Test: Addresses common missteps in URL management and ensures users are aware of best practices for canonicalization.

We find that SEO Site Checkup’s approach offers some valuable insights, but also risks overwhelming or misleading users with the way it prioritizes and interprets some SEO factors. We think it could be more effective if it took a more holistic approach, analyzing the entire  website as opposed to only one page. We’d also like to urge our readers to be skeptical of the upsell prompts utilized in this report. Like navigating an auto repair shop’s recommendations, discernment is key to identifying truly beneficial SEO strategies.