Home / Services / Technical SEO Services
Technical SEO AgencyAs a technical SEO agency, we deliver technical SEO services with people who can write the code, not just report the problem. We find what stops search engines crawling, indexing and understanding your website, then fix it with your developers or ours.
Technical SEO is the work that makes a website easy for search engines to crawl, index and understand. Great content cannot rank if Google cannot reach it, wastes its crawl on duplicate URLs, or sees an empty page because the content loads with JavaScript. A technical SEO agency exists to find and fix exactly those problems — at the level of servers, templates, code and site architecture, not just page copy.
Most technical SEO audits end with a spreadsheet of warnings. As a studio that builds websites and web apps, we go further: we explain which issues genuinely affect rankings, in what order to fix them, and we can implement the fixes in WordPress, Shopify, Laravel, React and custom PHP. That developer depth is the honest difference between a technical agency and a generalist agency running an automated tool: the tools are the starting point, not the deliverable.
We are based at 174 Wilmslow Road in Manchester and deliver technical SEO for websites across the UK, from small business sites to large e-commerce catalogues. Visuosofts has operated since 2020 as a digital studio — the same team that audits your site also builds websites, e-commerce stores and custom software, so our recommendations are grounded in what is actually practical to ship on real platforms.
We also work the way larger organisations need an agency to work: alongside in-house SEO and marketing teams who need specialist depth, alongside other agencies that need technical support for their clients, and directly with development teams who need tickets they can actually implement. Every engagement is led by people who have implemented these fixes themselves — crawl budgets, log files, rendering problems and migrations are our home ground, not an upsell bolted onto a content retainer.
Platform matters, and generic advice fails on specifics. WordPress sites usually break through plugins, themes and accumulated redirects; Shopify through app-injected scripts, collection filtering and duplicate product URLs; custom and headless builds through rendering choices and APIs that serve search engines something different from users. Our audit starts from the platform you are actually on — its known failure modes, its constraints, and the fixes it realistically allows — rather than a platform-neutral checklist applied to everyone.
Do you always need an agency? Honestly, no. A small brochure site with sound foundations may need a one-off audit and a short fix list, which we will tell you. An agency earns its fee when the site is large, the platform is complex, traffic has dropped after a migration or redesign, or the problems sit in areas — server configuration, JavaScript rendering, faceted navigation, international setup — where a wrong change can do more harm than the original issue.
A full crawl plus Search Console and log data, with every issue ranked by impact on rankings — not exported raw from a tool. We check crawlability, indexation, architecture, speed, structured data, canonicalisation, hreflang and rendering, then separate the faults costing you traffic from the warnings that can safely wait.
Robots.txt, XML sitemaps, canonical tags, noindex rules and faceted navigation brought under control. We find where crawl budget is being wasted on filters, parameters and dead ends, why important pages are excluded from the index, and what has to change in templates and internal linking to fix it permanently.
LCP, INP and CLS improved through image, script, font and server changes, measured on real-user field data rather than a single lab run. We identify the specific elements delaying your largest contentful paint or shifting your layout, write the fix at template level, and verify the improvement in Search Console as field data updates.
URL structure, internal linking and navigation designed so important pages get found, crawled often and linked with descriptive anchors. We map your page types, find orphaned and buried content, and restructure hierarchies so authority flows to the pages that earn revenue — without breaking the URLs that already work.
Schema.org markup for organisations, products, articles, FAQs and local businesses, implemented in templates, validated against eligibility rules and monitored for errors. Done properly, structured data helps search engines understand your pages and can win richer results; done carelessly, it produces warnings and missed eligibility, which is what we usually inherit.
Rendering checks and fixes for React, Vue, Angular and other JavaScript-heavy sites and single-page applications. We compare what users see with what search engines index, diagnose content and links that only exist client-side, and specify server-side rendering, pre-rendering or dynamic rendering where the evidence justifies it.
Redirect chains, broken links and 404s cleaned up, and migrations planned safely: full redirect mapping, pre-launch checks on staging, launch-day monitoring and post-launch benchmarking against pre-migration traffic and rankings. A migration is the highest-risk job in SEO, and it is the one where process matters more than promises.
Hreflang, language versions and domain structure for sites serving more than one country, audited for return-tag errors, conflicting canonicals and wrong-language indexing. We run a multi-country estate ourselves, so we know where international setups break in practice — and how to prove each language version is being indexed in the right market.
A full crawl of the site as Googlebot sees it, including rendered JavaScript, alongside Search Console coverage and performance data, analytics and — where available — server log files. Log files are the ground truth of crawling: they show exactly which URLs Googlebot requests, how often, and what it ignores, which no crawl simulation can fully replicate.
Crawl data is matched against Search Console indexation reports, real-user Core Web Vitals field data and log-file evidence. This is where most audits go wrong: a crawler warning contradicted by log data may be a non-issue, while a quiet pattern in the logs — Googlebot abandoning a section, or hammering a parameter trap — may be the real problem.
Issues are ranked by the traffic, revenue and pages they affect, not by warning count or tool severity scores. You get a short list of fixes that will move rankings first, a second list of worthwhile improvements, and an honest note of what we would leave alone. Every item states the evidence, the expected effect and the effort involved.
Developer-ready tickets for your team — each with the problem, the specification, an example and acceptance criteria — or fixes implemented directly by our own developers. We join standups or review calls where that helps, answer implementation questions as they arise, and never hand over a finding without a practical route to resolving it.
Changes are re-crawled and checked in staging before release and in Search Console after it. Redirects are tested URL by URL, rendering is compared before and after, and indexation is watched until the graphs settle. A fix that was deployed but never verified is a hope, not a result — verification is a named step in our process because of that.
Ongoing scheduled crawls and Search Console checks so new releases do not reintroduce old problems. Template changes, plugin updates and well-meaning development work are the usual sources of technical regressions; monitoring catches a broken canonical or a blocked section in days rather than at the next quarterly audit.
Pages Google never indexes. The Page Indexing report in Search Console often shows URLs marked "Crawled, currently not indexed" or "Discovered, currently not indexed". The cause might be thin or duplicate content, weak internal links, crawl budget being spent elsewhere or a slow server, and each needs a different fix. An agency's job is to diagnose which cause applies to which page set — the label in the report is a symptom, and treating every symptom the same way wastes months.
Duplicate URLs splitting signals. Filters, tracking parameters, trailing slashes and HTTP and HTTPS versions can create many URLs for the same page. Canonical tags, redirects and consistent internal links consolidate them, but only if they all agree: a canonical pointing one way, a sitemap listing another version and internal links favouring a third is a common finding, and search engines resolve the conflict by trusting you less, not more.
Slow, unstable pages. Core Web Vitals are part of Google's page experience signals. Large hero images, render-blocking scripts and layout shifts from late-loading elements are common culprits, and most can be fixed without a redesign. Our proof standard is measurement, not opinion: we work from real-user field data, identify the template or asset responsible, fix it, and show the before-and-after in the same data source once it refreshes — the only honest way to claim a speed improvement.
Content search engines cannot see. If key text or links only appear after JavaScript runs, search engines may index less than users see — or index it late, inconsistently, or not at all on a large site where rendering queues are long. We test rendered output against raw HTML across your main templates, following the rendering guidance in the Google Search Central documentation, and recommend server-side rendering or other fixes only where the gap is real.
What log-file analysis reveals. Server logs record every request Googlebot actually made. Analysed properly, they show crawl budget being burned on faceted URLs, calendars and search pages; important sections crawled rarely because internal links are weak; response errors users never see; and orphan pages Google found from old sitemaps or external links. For large and e-commerce sites this is often the single highest-value exercise in the audit, and it is one many agencies skip because it needs data skills, not another dashboard. It is standard in ours.
E-commerce and large sites: scale changes everything. A fault that affects twelve pages on a brochure site affects twelve thousand on a catalogue. Faceted navigation can generate near-infinite URL combinations; out-of-stock and seasonal products need deliberate indexation rules, not defaults; pagination, sorting parameters and search results pages each need a policy that is implemented consistently and then policed. We map these page types explicitly, decide crawl and index rules per type with you, and use log data to confirm Googlebot's effort is going where the revenue is. This is unglamorous, systematic work — and it is where large sites quietly win or lose their organic traffic.
What you actually receive from an audit. Not a raw tool export and not a two-hundred-page PDF written to look thorough. You receive a prioritised findings document where every issue carries the evidence for it, example URLs, the business effect in plain English, the fix specification and an effort estimate — sequenced into an order your team can work through, with a short executive summary for people who only need the headlines. If a finding cannot be evidenced, it does not go in. If we looked at something and it was healthy, we say so, because knowing what not to spend money on is part of the value.
Migrations: where agencies prove themselves. Replatforming, redesigning or moving domain concentrates a site's entire SEO risk into a few weeks. Our process covers redirect mapping at URL level, content and template parity checks, staging crawl comparisons, a launch-day checklist, and post-launch monitoring of indexation, errors and traffic against the pre-migration benchmark — with a rollback-minded plan for anything critical. If you are planning a move, read about our SEO migration services before the new site is designed, not after it launches; most migration losses are designed in, then discovered too late.
How technical SEO is priced — honestly. Expect an agency to price an audit by the size and complexity of the site — URL count, page types, platforms, countries and whether log-file analysis and JavaScript rendering work are included — and to price implementation separately, because nobody knows what the fixes are until the audit is done. Be cautious with any fixed figure quoted before anyone has seen your site, and with audits priced as loss-leaders that exist to sell a retainer. We quote the audit after an initial look at the site, state exactly what it covers, and price implementation from the prioritised fix list, so you can also hand the tickets to your own developers if you prefer. No invented figures, no obligation attached to the findings.
Choosing a technical SEO agency. Ask who will actually do the work and whether they can implement, or only report. Ask for their process on migrations and log files — specifics separate specialists from generalists quickly. Ask how fixes are verified, and expect the answer to involve re-crawls and Search Console evidence rather than assurances. Ask what they would not do: an agency that can name the warnings it ignores, and explain why, understands prioritisation. And check the basics — a real studio address, named services and straight answers. Ours is 174 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M14 5LQ, and you can reach us on +44 7387 055617.
Technical SEO is one part of a wider strategy. See SEO audit services for a one-off review, on-page SEO services for content and meta work, and an SEO consultant if you need senior guidance for an in-house team. For multi-country sites, see international SEO services. Our technical SEO audit checklist shows what a full audit covers, our guide explains hreflang in plain English, and our Core Web Vitals techniques cover the speed work in depth. Ongoing health is covered by website maintenance.
A technical SEO agency finds and fixes the infrastructure problems that stop search engines crawling, rendering, indexing and understanding a website: indexation, site architecture, canonicalisation, redirects, Core Web Vitals, structured data, JavaScript rendering and international setup. The difference from a general SEO agency is implementation depth — a technical agency works at server, template and code level, and can usually fix what it finds rather than only reporting it. Engagements range from a single audit with a prioritised fix list, to implementation alongside your developers, to ongoing monitoring that catches regressions as new code ships — and a good agency will recommend the smallest of those that your site genuinely needs.
It depends on the size and complexity of the site and whether you need an audit only, audit plus implementation, or ongoing monitoring — so any honest agency will look at your site before quoting. We scope the audit after an initial review, state exactly what it covers, and price implementation from the prioritised fix list; you are free to hand those tickets to your own developers instead. What we will not do is publish a made-up price list for work we have not seen.
Technical SEO deals with the site's infrastructure: crawling, indexing, speed, code, architecture and how templates behave at scale. On-page SEO deals with the content and HTML of individual pages, such as titles, headings, copy and internal links. They fail differently too — on-page problems cost you rankings page by page, while a technical fault in one template can quietly affect thousands of URLs at once, which is why technical issues are usually fixed first.
Yes. Our team includes developers who work in WordPress, Shopify, Laravel, React and custom PHP, so we can fix issues directly on your site, or write developer-ready tickets — problem, specification, example and acceptance criteria — for your own team and QA their work as it ships. Many clients mix the two: their developers handle platform changes while we implement schema, redirects and template fixes. Either way, every fix is re-crawled and verified after release.
Search engines need to recrawl the affected pages, which can take days for important pages and weeks for large sites. Indexation corrections often show first in Search Console coverage reports; ranking and traffic improvements usually follow over the following weeks as the changes are processed. Speed improvements appear in field data on a rolling basis. We set expectations per fix at the prioritisation stage, and verify against the same measures — anyone promising an exact date is guessing.
They are one of many signals Google uses, and they rarely outweigh relevance and content quality — a slow page with the best answer can still rank. But poor LCP, INP or CLS usually signals wider template and server problems, and faster, more stable pages convert visitors better regardless of rankings, so improving them is worthwhile on its own. We treat them as a measured engineering task with field data before and after, not as a promise of positions.
Send us your website and we will run an initial crawl and tell you what we find.
Book a Free Consultation →