SEO audit report sample: a real report of our own site

What this report is

A report from the free SEO audit on this site, run on our own address, convertlyft.com, on 12 November 2026. The scan opened 25 pages. This page shows the report as it read on 13 November 2026. Nothing below is rewritten: the score, the issues, their fixes and the list of what was not checked are the report’s own words, and all 5 issues are here.

The report page also has buttons to share or download it and an offer of a free account. Those are left out. The report’s own link stops working after a while, so this page keeps a stored copy.

1. The score

The report opens with one line and the count of checks behind it:

• Site score. 100 — weakest: Content 99
• Checks. Measured: 227 of 305 checks

Under it, the report explains the number: “The average of the 4 pillars this crawl could score, with the weakest named beside it. Each pillar starts at 100 and loses points for what the crawl found, more for problems on the pages that matter most (the ones your site points to most).”

Read the two lines together. The score covers the 227 checks that ran; the other 78 did not run on this scan, and the report names what was not measured further down.

2. Fix first

The report puts one issue ahead of the rest and says what fixing it is worth:

• Share cards that repeat across pages — worth 0.3 points. Content · on 2 of 25 pages checked · an estimate: this check infers it

Then it says how the score is worked out, in full: “How it is worked out: a critical problem costs at most 40 points and a warning at most 20, in proportion to the share of pages it affects; notices cost 0. A check that could not run counts as neither a pass nor a fail, and a pillar where fewer than 50% of its checks could run reads Partial. A crawl that scored fewer than 5 pages has its overall capped at 79. The points beside each fix add up while its pillar is above 0. It measures problems the crawl can detect: it is not a Google ranking factor, and 100 is not the goal.”

3. The 5 issues

The count the report gives: 5 issues, 2 warnings · 3 info, 0 critical. Each one below is as its panel showed it. The report adds: “Examples only: a to-do can be on more pages than its examples.”

Issue 1: Share cards that repeat across pages

• Level. warning, 2 pages. We have not tested this check on real pages yet.
• Why it matters. Part of this page’s share card — its og:title or og:description, or the twitter: equivalent — is word for word the same as on other pages, so shares of different pages show the same title or the same summary.
• How to fix. Build each page’s share tags from its own title and description. Usually a change for whoever builds your site.
• Affected pages (2). /heatmaps, /rank-tracking.

Issue 2: The crawl stopped before it read the whole site

• Level. warning, 0 pages.
• Why it matters. The crawl reached its page limit or its time limit, or was stopped, while it still knew of pages it had not read. Every count here covers only the pages it read.
• How to fix. Nothing to change on your site. To cover the rest, start a crawl that is allowed more pages or more time. Nothing to fix: a note about the check itself, or a page meant to be this way.
• Affected pages (0).

Issue 3: Files hold up the page before it can show (render-blocking)

• Level. info, 25 pages. We have not tested this check on real pages yet.
• Why it matters. The page waits on scripts or stylesheets before it can show anything. Every visitor pays that delay before the first pixel, and it is one of the most common causes of a poor Largest Contentful Paint.
• How to fix. Defer or async non-critical scripts, and inline the small amount of CSS needed for the top of the page while loading the rest asynchronously. Usually a change for whoever builds your site.
• Affected pages (25). /, /agent-readiness, /blog/ecommerce-conversion-rate, /blog/what-is-a-good-bounce-rate, /blog/when-to-hire-a-cro-consultant, /error-tracking, /funnel-analysis, /ga4-terms/cross-network, /ga4-terms/direct-traffic, /ga4-terms/event-count.

Issue 4: Some checks did not run on this crawl

• Level. info, 0 pages.
• Why it matters. Part of the checking was switched off for this crawl: for example following links to see whether they are broken, loading each page’s images and scripts, or opening pages in a real browser. A count of 0 for one of those means it was not checked, not that nothing is wrong.
• How to fix. Nothing to change on your site. To get those results, start a crawl with those checks switched on. Nothing to fix: a note about the check itself, or a page meant to be this way.
• Affected pages (0).

Issue 5: This crawl read only part of your sitemap

• Level. info, 0 pages.
• Why it matters. Your sitemap lists more pages than this crawl read. What is shown here is about the pages it read; it says nothing, good or bad, about the others.
• How to fix. Nothing to change on your site. To cover more of the sitemap, start a crawl that is allowed more pages. Nothing to fix: a note about the check itself, or a page meant to be this way.
• Affected pages (0).

4. What the scan did not check

The report ends its list with what it did not look at, so that a short list is not read as a clean one:

• Not measured on this scan: links to broken pages; images, scripts and stylesheets that fail to load; pages as a browser builds them; accessibility checks that need a real browser, such as colour contrast; content that only loads as you scroll; text colour contrast; accessibility checks that need your page’s styles; whether your sitemap’s “last updated” dates are accurate; whether the links in your structured data lead to real pages.
• convertlyft.com: 38 of the 63 pages your sitemap lists are not checked yet.

5. AI assistants

The same scan asks for the pages as AI crawlers do, and reports the answer in one line:

• We asked for your pages as 14 AI crawlers and assistants: 14 got them, 0 were refused.

The agent readiness check goes through each one.

What we did with it

The first issue was right. The report’s data names the tag: “og:title Website Heatmaps: Clicks, Taps and Scroll Depth”, on 2 pages: /heatmaps, /rank-tracking. Our /rank-tracking page was carrying the share title and description of /heatmaps. It now carries its own, live since 13 November 2026.

Three of the 5 are about the scan and not about the site, and the report says so on each: “Nothing to fix: a note about the check itself, or a page meant to be this way.” The remaining one, files that hold up the page, is listed at info level on all 25 pages.

Get this report for your site

Run the free SEO audit on your address. What an SEO audit checks explains what it looks at.