A small Python audit can reveal site-wide SEO problems that are easy to miss page by page—but the results are only useful when you distinguish technical checks from Google’s ranking and indexing decisions. In a 2025 account, developer Khawaja Khurram reports finding canonical mismatches, missing structured data, long titles, weak internal linking, and thin pages across a 100-page site. Here’s what that audit found, what its numbers do and do not prove, and how to turn the approach into a useful check of your own site.
What the 100-page audit reported
Khurram’s account, published September 28, 2025, describes a free coding platform with more than 100 pages. After submitting a sitemap without seeing the expected results, he wrote a Python script to inspect pages. He reports these initial findings:
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Digital Marketing Essentials Toolkit | $14.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
| Check | Reported result | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| Canonical URLs | 42 pages pointed to the wrong domain | A reported configuration mismatch, not proof that those pages could never rank. |
| Structured data | No pages had structured data | An absence of markup is not, by itself, evidence that a page is ineligible for ordinary search results. |
| Title length | 26 pages had titles longer than 60 characters | Sixty characters was the author’s audit threshold, not a Google limit. |
| Internal links | 50 pages had none, under the script’s check | The example counted links whose href began with a slash; that does not capture every valid internal URL format. |
| Content length | 8 pages had fewer than 300 words | Under 300 words was the author’s threshold, not a Google quality rule. |
These counts are Khurram’s reported results, not independently verified measurements. The available account does not establish whether its audit covered every page in the same way or how the site’s URL variants were handled.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWhat changed after the fixes—and what the figures cannot show
Khurram says he corrected the issues and compared several site measures before and 30 days after the work:
#1 Best Overall
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Pages with correct canonicals | 22 | 100 |
| Pages with JSON-LD | 0 | 100 |
| Average internal links per page | 0.4 | 5.2 |
| Pages with “proper” titles | 74 | 100 |
| Average word count | 280 | 420 |
He also reports that Google crawled roughly five times more pages per week afterward. The figures are the author’s account; the available evidence does not establish a controlled comparison or show that the changes caused the increase. It also does not demonstrate resulting gains in rankings, clicks, or traffic. Treat the before-and-after table as a case study in what one developer changed, not a forecast for another site.
How to make a page audit useful
Start with checks that can be repeated
The example script uses Python’s requests library to fetch pages and BeautifulSoup to parse HTML. It checks whether a title exceeds 60 characters, whether a canonical tag or JSON-LD script is present, and whether a page has fewer than three internal links matching its slash-prefixed URL test. The author says he ran checks over a sitemap and exported issues to CSV.
That is a useful first pass for straightforward HTML pages, but presence checks are not full validation. A canonical tag can exist and still point to the wrong URL; a JSON-LD block can be malformed or inapplicable; and a page can have useful internal links that the simple href test misses. The example does not demonstrate JavaScript rendering, comprehensive URL normalization, HTTP error handling, sitemap pagination, or verification of Google’s selected canonical. Add those boundaries before treating a report as a complete audit.
Recommended Free Tools
Choose a method that fits the site
A manual script is most useful when the URL set is modest, the checks are well-defined, and you want to reproduce or customize a report. A dedicated crawler may be more practical when you need crawl-depth analysis, rendering of JavaScript content, broader validation, or repeatable exports across a larger site. Decide based on the work required rather than assuming either method is a complete audit by itself.
- Check whether the relevant page content and links appear in the fetched HTML or require rendering.
- Decide how the audit will treat redirects, query strings, trailing slashes, and alternate URL forms.
- Separate a missing element from an element that exists but is incorrect.
- Keep results reproducible: record the URLs checked, the date, and the exact rules used.
How to interpret the main SEO checks
Canonicals should agree with the site’s URL signals
A canonical annotation expresses a preferred URL; it does not command Google to index that URL. Google treats redirects and rel="canonical" annotations as strong signals, while sitemap inclusion is weaker. It can combine these signals and may select a different canonical. A mismatch between the tag, redirects, and sitemap is worth investigating because it sends inconsistent guidance, but a wrong tag does not prove that a page can never rank. Check Google’s selected canonical in Search Console rather than assuming the page’s tag controls the outcome. Google also says sites do not need explicit canonical preferences to perform well. Google’s canonicalization guidance.
Write titles for clarity, not a character target
Use a distinct, accurate title that describes the page. Google does not set a fixed character maximum; title links may be shortened to fit a device and can be generated using the title element, visible headings, anchor text, and other sources. A 40–60-character range can be an editorial heuristic, but it is not a Google rule. Avoid vague, repetitive, or keyword-stuffed titles. Google’s title-link documentation.
Make important pages discoverable through links
Google recommends that every page a site owner cares about be linked from at least one other page. Use crawlable links and descriptive anchor text so visitors and search engines can understand where a link leads. There is no official target of four links per page—or any magical ideal count—so make links relevant to the page and useful to readers. Google’s link best practices and SEO Starter Guide.
Add structured data only when it accurately describes the page
Structured data gives search engines explicit clues about a page’s meaning and can make a page eligible for certain rich results. Eligibility is not a promise that a rich result will appear. Validate that the markup matches visible page content and the relevant feature’s requirements; adding a JSON-LD block solely to clear an audit check is not enough. Google’s structured-data introduction.
Improve content for usefulness, not word count
Google says it has no preferred word count. A page below 300 words is not automatically thin in a way that prevents it from ranking, just as a longer page is not automatically useful. Review whether the page answers its intended question with specific, accurate information, and add material where it helps the reader rather than padding to reach a threshold. Google’s people-first content guidance.
What this case study is good for
The strongest lesson is operational: repeated page-level checks can expose patterns worth reviewing across a site. The reported counts give concrete examples of the kinds of issues a basic audit can surface, but the suggested thresholds—60 characters, three links, and 300 words—belong to this author’s script and approach, not to Google’s standards. Use an audit to identify candidates for inspection, then verify the issue and prioritize fixes according to the page’s purpose and the signals Google actually uses.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →
