| Home | Cookie Information |
| Home | Cookie Information |
Important: Competition audits should be done lawfully and respectfully. Use only publicly available material, respect website terms and access limits, and avoid scraping, automation, bulk extraction, access-control bypassing, system probing, or anything that could burden or interfere with another site. Related: Legal Matters.
Organic search work is useful only when it begins with the right diagnosis. It can make a page easier to find, easier to understand, easier to compare, and easier to trust, but when improvement begins before diagnosis, optimization becomes a substitute for understanding why the page is losing.
The uncomfortable fact is that many pages are not losing because they are missing one more optimization ingredient. They are losing because they are not yet good enough to replace what already ranks, and that is the judgment many workflows try to avoid.
It is easier to ask what can be added than to ask why the page should be chosen. It is easier to adjust headings, expand sections, add internal links, rewrite meta tags, or place keywords more carefully than to admit that the page may be clear, technically acceptable, and still not worth preferring.
That is the problem this essay is concerned with. The point is not that backlinks, internal links, keyword mapping, headings, image alt text, technical fixes, and expanded content do not matter, because many of them do. The point is that none of them, by themselves, explain what is actually holding a specific page back.
A page can fail for different reasons. It may fail because it cannot be properly crawled, rendered, indexed, or understood. It may fail because it answers the wrong version of the query. It may fail because stronger competitors give users better reasons to trust them. It may fail because it is relevant but replaceable, saying what every other result already says without giving the reader a reason to prefer it.
Each of these failures calls for a different repair. More writing does not fix a crawlability problem. Faster loading does not fix an intent mismatch. Better headings do not fix a trust gap. A longer page does not become better if the added length only gives ordinary material more room to remain ordinary.
This is why so much search work produces movement without progress. The page changes, the effort is real, and the visible work may look impressive, but the constraint remains because the wrong problem was solved.
The first question is not yet whether the page is better than the competition. The first question is whether the page is eligible to compete at all.
If a page cannot be found, processed, indexed, rendered, or understood, then a competitive content audit begins too late. A page with a noindex problem, a canonical conflict, a crawl block, a rendering issue, or broken internal access does not need a better metaphor or another paragraph; it needs to be made available to the search system in the first place.
That does not make technical work the whole discipline. It only gives it its proper place. Technical eligibility is the floor, not the argument, and once the page can be found and understood, the more difficult question begins.
The mistake is to confuse eligibility with merit. A technically clean page has only entered the room; it has not yet given anyone a reason to choose it.
A page that is not ranking often gets treated like a room that needs redecorating. The lighting is adjusted, the signage is improved, the menu is expanded, and the furniture is moved around.
Some of this may help, but none of it answers the first serious question if the restaurant across the street is full every night. The question is not only what is wrong with your room, but why people are choosing the other one.
The same is true in search. A page does not fail in isolation. It fails against other pages that already satisfy the query well enough to hold their position.
That is why usefulness in general is not enough. A page may be clear, accurate, and competent while still being less useful than the alternatives, because search results are comparative spaces and a page has to earn preference inside that space.
Once the page is technically eligible to compete, the right starting point is the competition. Before changing a heading, adding a link, or expanding a paragraph, the more useful question is who is already ranking for this term and why those pages hold their place.
This is not a call to copy them. Copying the competition only produces another version of the existing result set. The purpose of competitive diagnosis is to understand the standard that already exists, then identify where that standard is still incomplete.
A useful exercise is to read the top five results as a stack. Not as five separate pages, but as one visible field of answers. What does every page open with? What does every page repeat? What does every page avoid? What kind of reader does each page seem to imagine?
The shared pattern is often more important than any single weakness. One competitor may have stronger authority, another may have better structure, and another may match the intent more precisely, but when several results leave the same doubt unresolved, the result set begins to show its shape.
That is where opportunity may exist, though not every absence is an opportunity. If something is missing from every top result, the first explanation should not be that several publishers all missed the same obvious point, because it may simply be that users do not want that material for this query.
This is where many page strategies overreach. They confuse completeness with usefulness, adding every related detail, every possible subtopic, every adjacent question, and every explanation that could be included.
The page becomes larger, but not necessarily better. A page does not earn its place by becoming more complete in a generic sense; it earns its place by becoming more useful in a specific sense.
The missing thing has to be wanted. It has to help the user make a decision, understand a distinction, avoid a mistake, compare options, trust the answer, or finish the task that brought them to the search box in the first place.
A gap is not valuable because it is empty. It is valuable because the user still needs what should have been there, and that is the difference between adding material and solving a problem.
This is where logical analysis matters more than activity. Before a page is expanded, polished, or technically adjusted, the problem has to be named.
Is the page failing because it cannot be discovered? Is it answering the wrong intent? Is it weaker than the competition on trust? Is it saying the same thing as everyone else? Is the target query too broad, too competitive, or not valuable enough to pursue?
Those are different problems, and they do not share the same repair. A page that has not been indexed needs technical work. A page that answers the wrong query needs a change in intent. A page that is accurate but replaceable needs better judgment, evidence, specificity, or experience.
The mistake is to treat all ranking failure as if it were one problem with one familiar solution. The real task is not to prove that many things could be improved, because that is almost always true. The real task is to identify the constraint that matters first.
There is another uncomfortable step that often gets skipped. Before judging the content alone, you have to ask who is speaking and what credibility surrounds the page.
A page on a powerful domain may be ranking despite its content, not because of it. A thin page on a trusted site can sometimes outrank a stronger page on a weaker site because the surrounding signals are not equal.
That does not make content irrelevant. It means content is not judged in a vacuum. Authority can come from many places: a long publication history, relevant links, known expertise, organizational credibility, reviews, local presence, firsthand experience, or a body of related work that makes the page feel less isolated.
Third-party authority metrics can be useful as rough indicators, but they should not be mistaken for the search system itself. If the competitive set is supported by years of accumulated trust, then prose alone may not close the gap.
That changes the repair. A trust gap is not solved by adding another paragraph, an authority gap is not solved by rearranging headings, and a weak topical footprint is not solved by polishing one page as if one page could carry the whole claim by itself.
Sometimes the answer is not to make the page longer. It is to make the site around the page more credible through stronger supporting pages, better internal links, clearer authorship, better evidence, and more relevant recognition from outside the site.
A common mistake is to treat Google as the real audience. Google is the system through which the audience is reached, but the page still has to answer a human problem: a doubt, a comparison, a task, or a decision.
When this is forgotten, a page can follow every checklist and still remain weak. It contains the expected terms, has the expected sections, covers the expected ground, and looks like a page that should be eligible, but eligibility is not preference.
The reader still has to feel that the page understands the situation. The reader still has to see why this answer is clearer, more specific, more trustworthy, or more useful than the next one.
This is why “deserving to rank” should be treated as shorthand for an editorial test, not as a moral claim. It means the page has earned the reader’s time, answered the real question, and shown enough judgment, specificity, evidence, or experience to be trusted.
The page may be clear and useful and still lose. Another page may give users stronger reasons to believe it, answer the query with more practical force, or simply understand the user’s situation better.
Many pages do not fail because they need another heading, another internal link, another keyword, or another paragraph. They fail because they do not yet deserve preference over the pages already there.
That is a harder problem because a technical problem may be measurable, while weak judgment often hides inside acceptable content. A missing tag can be added, a crawl issue can be found, and a broken link can be repaired, but weak judgment is harder to see because it can look like ordinary competence.
The page may be clear but ordinary. It may be accurate but thin. It may be relevant but replaceable, saying nothing false and still failing to matter.
This is where checklists become dangerous. They create the feeling of progress without the fact of it. A page gets longer, more optimized, and more complete, yet it still does not move because the real weakness was never addressed.
The problem was not that the page lacked another ingredient. The problem was that the meal was not worth choosing.
This is the threshold many pages never cross. They reach competence and stop, covering the topic, using the right terms, following the expected structure, and answering the visible query well enough to seem finished.
But competence only gets a page into the competition. It does not win it. A page has to do what the ranking pages do well enough to belong in the result set, then do something more useful, more specific, or more trustworthy than they do.
Sometimes that means adding depth. Sometimes it means narrowing the target, and sometimes it means changing the angle completely.
A page may be weak for one query, acceptable for another, and unusually strong for a narrower version of the same topic. Not every ranking target is worth pursuing, because some queries have low commercial value, unclear intent, or competitors that require too much authority to beat.
A ranking opportunity is useful only when it is both realistic and valuable. The better question is not always how to make this page rank, but whether this is the right query for the page to fight for.
Competition is useful because it reveals the standard. It is dangerous because it invites imitation, and high-ranking pages begin to resemble one another because publishers copy what already works.
The same headings appear, the same examples appear, the same safe explanations appear, and the same unanswered doubts remain. The result set becomes more polished without becoming much better.
If every competing page covers the same points in the same way, adding more of those same points does not create a stronger page. It creates a longer version of the same page.
This is the subtler danger. The page may not be irrelevant; it may be relevant in exactly the same way as everything else.
The goal is not to copy what the competition does well. The goal is to understand what the competition has made necessary, meet that baseline, and then give the reader a reason to prefer this page over the others.
That reason cannot be manufactured by imitation. It has to come from judgment, evidence, specificity, usefulness, or experience that the other pages do not provide.
Competitive diagnosis is not a one-time task. The pages you analyzed when you first targeted a keyword will not stay the same, because competitors rewrite, expand, merge, refresh, and improve their content.
A gap that existed when you last checked may have closed. A weakness you built your page around may no longer be there, because the field moves and the audit has to return.
Every three to six months, or whenever a ranking drops noticeably, the competitive set should be read again from scratch. Not glanced at, but read with the same seriousness that shaped the first diagnosis.
Look at organic search performance separately from other traffic. A page may work for returning visitors, email subscribers, or social referrals while still failing the search visitors it was meant to serve.
Engagement from organic search can be useful evidence, but it is not a verdict. It has to be read beside the query, the page’s purpose, and the result set the page is trying to beat.
A drop is not always a penalty. It is not always a technical failure. It may simply mean the answer field changed and the page no longer earns the same position inside it.
Search work is not only the work of entering the result set. It is the work of remaining worthy of the place.
There is a reasonable concern underneath all of this. If you study the competition, find a gap, and improve your page, a competitor may eventually study your page and close the same gap.
That is not a failure of the method. It is the method, because that cycle — each side studying the other, closing gaps, and raising the standard — is what pushes web content toward usefulness.
It is less a threat than a chess match. Every strong move forces a more considered response, the board improves, and so does the information on it.
The sites that win over time are not the ones that find a gap once and exploit it. They are the ones that build the habit of looking again, returning to the competition regularly, reading carefully, and asking whether their page still deserves its position.
The pages that are hardest to displace are not built from a more polished version of what competitors already published. They are built from real experience: firsthand knowledge, direct judgment, specific examples, and the kind of answer that can only come from someone who has actually dealt with the problem.
That is the advantage no audit can manufacture and no competitor can simply copy. The query may change, the result set may change, and the competitors may change, but the final question remains: was the right problem solved?
What follows is a clear, step-by-step plan for doing advanced SEO audits against competing websites. Instead of using simple checklists, it focuses on finding the real reasons one page is weaker than the pages already ranking.
The audit looks at:
Technical eligibility
Query and intent fit
Content quality
Authority and trust
Site structure
Backlinks and external recognition
Search-result presentation
User experience
Competitive positioning
A competitor audit cannot see everything. It cannot usually see private analytics, Search Console data, conversion rates, server logs, editorial workflow, or internal business targets. Those checks belong in the Extra section at the end.
The main audit below focuses on what can be checked from the outside.
Important: Competition audits should be done lawfully and respectfully. Use only publicly available material, respect website terms and access limits, and avoid scraping, automation, bulk extraction, access-control bypassing, system probing, or anything that could burden or interfere with another site. See a more detailed version of this message in the footer: Legal Matters.
Before judging a page against competitors, ask whether the page can compete at all.
Can the page be reached by a normal browser?
Can the page be crawled by standard SEO tools?
Is the page blocked by robots.txt?
Is there a visible noindex tag?
Is the canonical tag pointing to a reasonable URL?
Does the page appear to be indexed?
Can the main content be rendered?
Is important content hidden behind JavaScript?
Is the mobile version complete?
Is the page usable on mobile?
Is the layout stable enough for the reader?
Are internal links allowing the page to be discovered?
Are important pages buried too deeply?
Does the site architecture make important pages easy to find?
Are there redirect chains or broken redirects?
Are there duplicate or near-duplicate versions?
Are URL parameters creating confusion?
Is the XML sitemap publicly available?
Does the XML sitemap include the important pages?
Is the page returning the correct status code?
Do tested URLs return server errors or soft-404-like pages?
Is the page fast enough to use comfortably?
Is HTTPS working correctly?
Are intrusive popups or banners interfering with access?
A page can be technically sound and still answer the wrong question.
What exact query is the page trying to win?
Is the query informational, commercial, local, navigational, comparative, or transactional?
Is the page answering the visible keyword or the real task behind it?
What does the searcher already know?
What is the searcher trying to decide?
What mistake is the searcher trying to avoid?
Would a searcher feel they landed on the right page within the first few seconds?
Does the page answer too broadly?
Does the page answer too narrowly?
Does the page target the wrong stage of the user journey?
Is the page trying to serve multiple intents at once?
Is the title promising something the page does not fully deliver?
Does the introduction match the urgency of the query?
Does the page give the answer too late?
Does the page over-explain basics when the query needs judgment?
Does the page skip basics when the query needs orientation?
The result set is evidence. It shows what the search system already considers adequate.
Who ranks in the first five results?
Who ranks in the first ten results?
Are the winners brands, publishers, local businesses, marketplaces, forums, government sites, review sites, or specialist pages?
What does every leading page include?
What does every leading page avoid?
What do the leading pages open with?
What format do they use?
Are they guides, lists, product pages, service pages, tools, maps, videos, or discussions?
What level of depth seems expected?
What examples do competitors use?
What sources do they cite?
What objections do they answer?
What doubts do they leave unresolved?
What assumptions do they make about the reader?
Are they winning because of content quality?
Are they winning because of authority?
Are they winning because of freshness?
Are they winning because of format?
Are they winning because of brand trust?
Are they winning because of backlinks?
Are they winning because of local relevance?
Are they winning because of better intent match?
Is there a shared blind spot?
Is that blind spot actually wanted by users?
Would adding the missing material make a page more useful, or merely larger?
Before deciding that the content is weak, ask whether competing pages are supported by stronger visible trust signals.
Who is publishing the page?
Is authorship clear?
Is responsibility for the content visible?
Is the author credible for the topic?
Is there visible evidence of firsthand experience?
Is an editorial or review process disclosed?
Are claims sourced where needed?
Are sources current and relevant?
Does the page explain limits, exceptions, or uncertainty?
Does the page show how the author knows what they know?
Is the organization credible in this subject area?
Does the site have a visible body of related work?
Is the page isolated from the rest of the site?
Are there relevant internal links supporting the page?
Are there relevant external links pointing to the page or site?
Are reviews, testimonials, credentials, case studies, or examples visible?
Does the page show local knowledge where local knowledge matters?
Does the page sound like it was written by someone who has dealt with the problem?
Would a careful reader trust this page over competing pages?
If not, what visible evidence is missing?
This is where many audits are too shallow. The question is not whether the page has content, but whether the content deserves preference.
Is the page clear?
Is it specific?
Is it useful?
Is it accurate?
Is it current?
Is it complete enough for the task?
Does it make distinctions competitors miss?
Does it include examples?
Does it include practical details?
Does it answer follow-up questions?
Does it address objections?
Does it help the reader make a decision?
Does it avoid inflated claims?
Does it avoid generic language?
Does it avoid repeating category clichés?
Does it show judgment rather than just information?
Does it say anything competitors do not say?
Does it explain why the reader should trust it?
Does it have a clear point of view?
Is the page useful because it is longer, or useful because it is sharper?
Would the page still be valuable if the keyword were removed?
A page can be relevant and still replaceable.
Could this page be swapped with a competitor page without much loss?
Does it use the same structure as every other result?
Does it make the same points in the same order?
Does it rely on safe but ordinary explanations?
Does it summarize what is already available?
Does it add words without adding insight?
Does it contain firsthand detail?
Does it contain original examples?
Does it contain local, technical, comparative, or practical knowledge?
Does it answer the part of the query others leave hanging?
Is there a reason to save, share, cite, or return to this page?
Is the page merely eligible, or is it preferable?
A page can contain the right material and still fail because the structure does not guide the reader.
Does the title match the page’s actual promise?
Does the introduction establish the problem quickly?
Is the main answer easy to find?
Are headings useful to the reader, not just to the keyword plan?
Is the sequence logical?
Are basics separated from advanced detail?
Are comparisons easy to understand?
Are important warnings buried?
Are examples placed where they help?
Are long sections broken into useful parts?
Does the page avoid unnecessary repetition?
Does each section move the reader forward?
Would the page make sense if read quickly?
Would it still reward a careful reader?
Does the conclusion help the reader decide what to do next?
Sometimes the page is not the whole problem. The site around the page may be too thin.
Is the page part of a visible topic cluster?
Are related questions answered elsewhere on the site?
Do supporting pages link to this page?
Does this page link to deeper supporting material?
Are internal links placed where they are useful?
Is anchor text clear and natural?
Does the page appear to be orphaned?
Is the site trying to rank one page without showing broader expertise?
Are there missing supporting articles?
Are there outdated supporting articles?
Does the page belong naturally to the site’s identity?
Does the site architecture make the page feel important?
Does another public page on the same site target the same query?
Does keyword cannibalization appear likely from public search results?
Do competitors separate related intents more clearly?
Links should be read as evidence, not just counted.
Does the page have visible or tool-reported relevant links?
Does the site have visible or tool-reported relevant links?
Are links coming from thematically aligned sources?
Are competitors supported by stronger external recognition?
Are competitors ranking because of page-level links or domain-level trust?
Are the links editorially meaningful?
Are links coming from real publications, organizations, directories, citations, local sources, or industry references?
Do available backlink tools suggest irrelevant or suspicious link patterns?
Are there public unlinked mentions that could support authority?
Are there legitimate reasons others would cite this page?
Does the page contain link-worthy material?
If not, what would make it worth referencing?
Some pages fail because they are not wrong, but stale.
When was the page last visibly updated?
Have competitors updated recently?
Does the page show a revision date when freshness matters?
Is the update real, or only cosmetic?
Does the current result set suggest that search intent has changed?
Does the current result format differ from what an older page seems built for?
Have new sources, rules, prices, dates, tools, or examples appeared?
Are screenshots outdated?
Are statistics outdated?
Are examples still current?
Are recommendations still accurate?
Has the page kept old assumptions after the topic changed?
Does the page still answer the current version of the query?
A page can be good and still look weak in the result set.
Is the title tag clear?
Does the title match the searcher’s intent?
Does the meta description make a useful promise?
Does the page title sound generic?
Is the page competing against stronger titles?
Is the result being crowded out by ads, maps, videos, forums, shopping results, AI answers, or featured snippets?
Is the query still worth pursuing given the result layout?
Are competitors using richer snippets?
Is structured data appropriate?
Does the brand name strengthen or weaken trust in the search result?
Does the brand name make the result look more credible than competing results?
Would a searcher have a clear reason to choose this result over the others?
The click is not the finish. The page still has to satisfy the visit.
Does the page load quickly enough?
Is it easy to read on mobile?
Are ads or popups intrusive?
Is navigation clear?
Is the answer visible without too much friction?
Are comparison points easy to scan?
Are calls to action appropriate?
Is the next step obvious?
Does the page help users complete the task?
Do users need a table?
Do users need a map?
Do users need a checklist?
Do users need a calculator?
Do users need an example?
Do users need a quote?
Do users need a source?
Do users need an image or diagram?
Does the page create confidence or confusion?
Does the page serve both fast readers and careful readers?
Does it give the user a visible reason to stay?
Does the page make the answer harder to find than competing pages do?
Not every query is worth fighting for. A competitor audit can help estimate whether the query is valuable, realistic, and worth pursuing.
Does the query appear commercially valuable?
Is the intent clear enough to serve?
Does the result set suggest that the query attracts the right audience?
Does the result set suggest commercial, informational, local, or research value?
Are the ranking competitors unusually authoritative for this query?
Does the result set suggest that authority is a major ranking constraint?
Is there a narrower query with better odds?
Is there a more specific angle?
Are competitors targeting a broader term when a precise one might work better?
Does the result set favor businesses, publishers, directories, tools, forums, or marketplaces?
Do competing pages appear to serve visitors who are likely to compare, contact, buy, cite, or return?
Is the opportunity both realistic and valuable?
Sometimes the page is not losing to another article. It is losing to the shape of the result page.
Are ads pushing organic results down?
Is there a map pack?
Is there a featured snippet?
Are forums or discussion results dominating?
Are videos ranking?
Are images important?
Are product grids present?
Is the query being answered directly on the results page?
Is the query still worth targeting as a traditional page?
Does the page need a different format to compete?
Sometimes the strongest page is not the page that search engines appear to prefer.
Which page appears to be ranking?
Is another public page ranking instead of the intended page?
Do two or more pages on the same site appear for similar queries?
Is the stronger page buried internally?
Does the title of one page better match the query by accident?
Do competitors separate related pages more clearly?
Do competitors avoid mixing distinct search intents on one page?
A page should add something useful to the result set, not merely repeat it.
What does this page add that is not already in the result set?
Is the added material genuinely useful, or just extra?
Does it offer firsthand examples?
Does it include original judgment?
Does it explain a distinction others miss?
Does it answer a hidden user concern?
Does it reduce uncertainty?
Does it make the reader better informed than the competing pages do?
Do not only ask whether the page has sources. Ask whether the evidence is placed where doubt appears.
Which claims need proof?
Which claims are unsupported?
Are sources close to the claims they support?
Are examples concrete enough?
Are comparisons backed by evidence?
Are dates, prices, rules, or recommendations current?
Does the page distinguish fact from interpretation?
Does the page show how the author knows what they know?
Sometimes the page fails because the reader cannot tell why this site should be trusted for this topic.
Does the author identity matter here?
Is the author named?
Is the author’s experience relevant?
Does the site’s broader identity support the page?
Does the page feel natural on this site?
Is the topic too far from the site’s established expertise?
Would a reader understand why this publisher is writing about this?
A page may answer the query but make the answer too hard to use.
Is the answer buried?
Are paragraphs too dense?
Are lists needed?
Are tables needed?
Is the page too abstract?
Are key terms explained?
Are examples missing?
Does the reader have to work too hard to extract the decision?
Is the page written for the author’s structure rather than the reader’s task?
This is different from poor quality. The page may be useful but not strong enough to win.
Does the page help, but not settle the issue?
Does it inform without guiding?
Does it explain without helping the reader choose?
Does it avoid making useful distinctions?
Does it stop before the hard part?
Does it give safe information instead of practical judgment?
For local, service, travel, legal, medical, or practical queries, generic usefulness is often not enough.
Does the page include local context where needed?
Does it explain exceptions?
Does it show knowledge of the real-world setting?
Does it account for user situation?
Does it distinguish beginner, advanced, urgent, commercial, and research intent?
Does it answer what changes depending on location, time, budget, risk, or user type?
Do not only ask whether the page was updated. Ask whether the update mattered.
Was the update substantive or cosmetic?
Were old claims removed?
Were new competitors considered?
Were new examples added?
Were outdated links fixed?
Were screenshots, dates, prices, rules, and recommendations checked?
Did the update change the page’s usefulness, or only the revised date?
Some pages need more care because bad advice can harm the user.
Is the topic financial, medical, legal, safety-related, or otherwise high-stakes?
Are claims appropriately cautious?
Are limits explained?
Are sources strong enough?
Is professional advice implied where it should not be?
Are disclaimers needed?
Does the page avoid overpromising?
This is increasingly important because polished sameness can look like quality while weakening the page.
Does the page sound like a category summary?
Does it use generic phrasing that could appear anywhere?
Does it repeat safe, obvious advice?
Does it feel polished but empty?
Does it avoid taking responsibility for judgment?
Does it lack examples only this author or business could provide?
Could another site publish the same piece with only the brand name changed?
The audit should end with a diagnosis, not a pile of observations.
For each page, produce:
The target query
The current competing pages
The visible strengths of those pages
The visible weaknesses of those pages
The likely constraint
The evidence for that constraint
The repair needed
The expected difficulty
The expected value
The first action to take
The action not to take yet
That last item matters. A good audit should say not only what to do, but also what not to waste time doing before the real problem is solved.
After all of this, the audit should return to one question:
What is the actual constraint?
Ask:
Is the page unable to compete technically?
Is it targeting the wrong query?
Is it answering the wrong intent?
Is it weaker than competitors on authority?
Is it weaker on usefulness?
Is it too generic?
Is it too broad?
Is it stale?
Is it unsupported by the rest of the site?
Does the search result look weaker than competing results?
Does the page show visible friction after arrival?
Is the ranking target unrealistic?
Is the opportunity not valuable enough?
Ask this question:
If your top competitor swapped their brand name for yours on the page you most want to rank, would the reader notice any loss in value?
The following checks are useful, but they do not belong in the main competitor audit because they usually require private access to analytics, Search Console, server logs, internal business information, or the publishing workflow.
Analytics do not replace judgment, but they can show where to look.
Which queries bring impressions?
Which queries bring clicks?
Which queries have high impressions but low click-through rates?
Is the page failing to earn clicks despite getting impressions?
Which queries bring visitors who leave quickly?
Which queries bring engaged visitors?
Are users landing on the wrong page?
Are users finding the page but not choosing it?
Are users choosing it but not staying?
Are users staying but not acting?
Which pages are losing impressions?
Which pages are losing clicks?
Did rankings drop after competitors changed?
Did the page lose visibility after a technical change?
Is organic traffic behaving differently from social, referral, email, or direct traffic?
Does the data point to a technical, intent, trust, content, or conversion problem?
Some technical facts can only be confirmed directly when you control the site.
Is Google selecting a different canonical?
Is the page indexed according to Search Console?
Are important pages discovered but not indexed?
Are pages crawled but not indexed?
Is Google crawling the page often enough?
Are crawl errors visible in Search Console?
Are excluded URLs being excluded for the right reason?
Are soft 404s being reported by Google?
Is the submitted sitemap matching indexed URLs?
Some problems require access to logs, deployment history, or internal notes.
Did rankings drop after a known technical release?
Did traffic change after a template update?
Did the site change redirects, canonicals, internal links, JavaScript, or content rendering?
Did server logs show crawl waste?
Did important bots receive errors that normal users did not see?
Did a migration, redesign, plugin update, CMS change, or hosting change affect visibility?
A competitor audit can estimate value, but your own site needs private business data.
Are you judging the page by traffic when the goal is leads?
Are you judging it by rankings when the query has poor commercial value?
Are you judging it by engagement when the page is meant to answer quickly?
Are you judging it by clicks when the result page itself suppresses clicks?
Are branded and non-branded queries separated?
Are organic visitors separated from social, referral, direct, and email visitors?
Does the page bring the right audience?
Does that audience actually convert, subscribe, contact, buy, cite, or return?
Is the page worth improving, or should the target be changed?
Are the competitors too authoritative to challenge with the available resources?
A page may fail because the publishing system around it is weak. This can rarely be audited from the outside.
Who owns the page?
Who updates it?
How often is it reviewed?
Who checks facts?
Who checks competitors?
Who checks internal links?
Who checks whether the page still matches the target query?
Is there a maintenance calendar?
Is there a decision rule for rewriting, merging, pruning, or redirecting?
Public search results can suggest cannibalization, but the full diagnosis often needs Search Console.
Which page is actually getting impressions?
Is another page getting impressions instead of the intended page?
Are two pages splitting impressions for the same query?
Is the better page hidden from Google?
Is the wrong page ranking because its title, headings, links, or anchors better match the query?
Should pages be merged, redirected, differentiated, or retargeted?
A page is not an island where you can plant a flag, build a nice house, and assume people will arrive. It exists inside a moving field of competing pages, ads, search features, weak results, strong results, and pages that rank for reasons that may not be obvious at first. Practical SEO means studying that field carefully enough to see why one page moves, why another stalls, and why yours is not yet the one being chosen.
Please review the website's Privacy Policy, Disclaimer, and Further Terms.
For accessibility assistance, corrections, or general inquiries, please contact Ardan Michael Blum:
📞 Phone: +1 (650) 427-9358
✉️ Online: Contact Form
Stay updated: follow us on X | Top |