33 technical SEO issues,
explained.

1. SEO titles longer than 60 characters

The SEO title is the HTML <title> element, which can influence the clickable title shown in search results. This check flags titles exceeding 60 characters, including spaces.

Long titles may hide the most useful information when the displayed result is shortened. Length alone does not make a title ineffective.

Review whether the product, service, or topic is clear at the beginning. Remove repeated keywords and unnecessary boilerplate, but keep details that help distinguish the page. Treat 60 characters as a useful checkpoint, not a mandatory cutoff.

2. Missing or empty SEO titles

This finding means the page has no usable HTML title. A visible heading or a title entered in WordPress does not guarantee that the public page outputs a valid <title>.

The omission removes a useful description of the page for browsers and search engines. Google can generate a title link from other sources, but you have less control over how the page is presented. Source

Write a descriptive title and inspect the public HTML. If many pages are affected, check the theme and SEO plugin templates.

3. Multiple SEO title tags

Multiple title tags occur when the document outputs more than one <title> element, often because a theme, plugin, and custom code all generate it.

This is an HTML implementation problem. It creates ambiguity about the intended document title and can produce inconsistent behavior across tools. It does not provide extra opportunities to target keywords.

Keep one title element in the document head. Correct the component producing the duplicate rather than editing individual pages repeatedly. The HTML standard specifies that a document must not contain more than one title element. Source

4. Meta descriptions longer than 155 characters

A meta description summarizes the page in its HTML metadata. Crawlory flags descriptions longer than 155 characters, including spaces.

The practical risk is that a search snippet may omit useful details or a call to action. Google can also choose different text from the page, regardless of description length.

Put the main benefit and distinguishing information first. Remove repetition, but do not cut essential meaning merely to satisfy the threshold. Google specifies no fixed maximum meta description length. Source

5. Missing or empty meta descriptions

A missing description leaves the page without an explicitly written summary for search engines to consider.

This does not prevent indexing. Google can generate a snippet from page content, but that text may not communicate the page’s most useful benefit or commercial offer.

Write an accurate summary for important landing pages, products, and articles. Avoid promising something the page does not deliver. Meta descriptions are not a direct Google ranking factor; their main value is supporting informative search-result presentation and helping users decide whether to visit. Source

6. Multiple meta description tags

This finding means a page outputs more than one standard meta name="description" tag. It is different from having separate Open Graph or social-card descriptions, which serve other purposes.

Competing descriptions make the intended summary unclear and often indicate overlapping plugin or theme output. More tags do not produce a stronger description.

Keep one standard meta description. Inspect the generated HTML to identify whether the extra tag comes from an SEO plugin, theme setting, page builder, or custom integration.

7. SEO titles shorter than 30 characters

A short title may be too vague to distinguish the page. Labels such as “Services” or “Products” provide little context when seen outside the website.

However, a concise brand or product name can be sufficient. There is no requirement to reach 30 characters.

Expand the title only when additional wording helps users understand the specific offering or topic. Avoid adding filler to make an audit warning disappear. Descriptive, relevant wording matters more than meeting an arbitrary minimum. Source

8. Non-Latin characters in URLs or slugs

This check identifies letters from scripts such as Georgian, Cyrillic, Arabic, or Japanese in the URL path or slug.

These characters are not inherently bad for SEO. Google supports URLs using the audience’s language. A flag may instead reflect a site’s preference for transliteration or consistent URL formatting. Source

Review readability, sharing behavior, and your existing conventions before changing anything. Avoid migrating established URLs simply to make them Latin. If a change is justified, redirect the old address and update internal links.

9. Emojis in URLs

Emojis can appear in a URL as Unicode characters or encoded sequences.

The main concerns are practical: typing the address, recognizing it when encoded, sharing it across systems, and maintaining consistent naming. An emoji alone does not establish that a URL cannot be indexed or that the page deserves a penalty.

For new URLs, descriptive words are usually easier to maintain. For an existing URL, weigh the benefit of changing it against the migration work. If you rename it, preserve access through an appropriate redirect.

10. Missing or empty image alt text

Alt text provides a text alternative for an image. It helps people using screen readers, and Google uses it with other signals to understand image content. Source

For informative images, missing descriptions can remove useful meaning. For decorative images, however, an empty alt="" is often correct. Missing and deliberately empty attributes should not be treated as equivalent. Source

Describe what the image contributes in context. For an image acting as a button or link, describe its function. Avoid keyword stuffing.

11. Spaces in URLs

Literal spaces are not suitable for a URL as written and normally need encoding. An encoded space, such as %20, can work, but may make an address harder to read or maintain.

Interpret plus signs carefully: a + can represent a space in form-encoded query parameters, while it can be a literal character in a URL path.

Use hyphens between words in new slugs. Review existing URLs individually rather than replacing every space-like sequence, especially when query parameters control site functionality.

12. Uppercase characters in URLs

URL paths can be case-sensitive. For example, /Services/ and /services/ may behave as separate addresses even when they display similar content.

Inconsistent capitalization can create duplicate URL variants or broken links, depending on the server. Google recommends consistent casing when the server treats variants as the same page. Source

Use a consistent convention, commonly lowercase for new slugs. Before normalizing existing URLs, check routing and parameters. Some values are case-sensitive and must retain their original capitalization.

13. URLs longer than 115 characters

Crawlory flags long absolute URLs for review, including the scheme and hostname.

The 115-character threshold is a product convention, not a Google indexing limit. A long address may be legitimate, but it can also reveal repeated folders, excessive parameters, or unnecessarily verbose slugs.

Review whether each component serves a purpose. Shorten future URLs where practical and investigate duplicate variants created by parameters. Do not change a useful, established URL solely because it exceeds the threshold.

14. Duplicate SEO titles

Two or more scanned pages share the same title.

This can make different pages difficult to distinguish in search results. On a product catalog, it may hide important differences such as model, size, or use. Duplicate titles can also reveal an overly generic template. Source

Create distinct titles for pages with distinct purposes. If the pages themselves are duplicates, investigate consolidation or canonicalization. Changing only the title does not solve duplicate content, and identical titles alone do not prove keyword cannibalization.

15. SEO title identical to the H1

The HTML title and the visible main heading contain the same wording.

This is commonly acceptable. Both elements describe the same page, so agreement between them can be useful. Treat this flag as an editorial review opportunity rather than a technical error.

Consider different wording only when it improves the experience. For example, the SEO title might include a concise brand suffix while the H1 focuses on the product name. Do not make either element less clear merely to make them different.

16. Meta descriptions shorter than 70 characters

A very short description may leave out the information that distinguishes a page, such as its scope, audience, location, or benefit.

There is no Google minimum of 70 characters. A concise description may already communicate everything necessary.

Expand it when you can add useful detail. A service page might clarify who the service is for, while a product page might mention its defining specification. The aim is a helpful summary, not additional words for their own sake.

17. Duplicate meta descriptions

Multiple pages use the same description, often because a single template is applied throughout the site.

The main concern is relevance. A generic summary may not explain why someone should choose one product, article, or service page over another. It is not, by itself, evidence of a duplicate-content penalty.

Prioritize unique descriptions for important pages. For large catalogs, build templates using reliable page-specific information rather than the same promotional sentence everywhere. Google’s guidance recommends descriptions that accurately represent each page. Source

18. Missing or empty H1 headings

The page has no meaningful H1 identifying its main topic.

A missing H1 does not automatically prevent ranking, but it can make the content structure less clear. A heading that only looks large visually may still be a paragraph or decorative element in the HTML.

Add a descriptive main heading where appropriate. In WordPress, first check whether the theme already generates it from the page title. Use headings to communicate structure, not just to change text size. Source

19. Multiple H1 headings

The page contains more than one H1.

This is a structure check, not evidence of an automatic ranking penalty. The practical question is whether readers can identify the main page topic and understand how its sections relate.

For a typical product, service, or article page, one clear H1 is a straightforward convention. Review extra H1s generated by logos, banners, templates, or page builders. Change section headings to suitable lower levels when that better represents the document.

20. Broken internal links

An internal link points to a URL on your own site that returns a confirmed 404 or 410 response.

Visitors reach a dead end, and that link no longer provides a working route to its intended content. Important pages may become harder to discover when their internal links are broken. Crawlable internal links help Google find pages and understand their context. Source

Update the link to the correct destination, restore content removed by mistake, or remove the link if it no longer serves a purpose. Redirect only when a relevant replacement exists.

21. Published pages returning HTTP errors

WordPress can label content “Published” even when its public URL returns an error. Causes include routing problems, server failures, permissions, security rules, and missing resources.

Persistent errors can stop users and search engines from accessing the page. Google generally does not index 4xx responses, with 429 treated differently as an overload signal. Repeated 5xx responses can slow crawling and eventually affect index retention. Source

Investigate valuable URLs first. Verify whether the response affects ordinary visitors, Googlebot, or only the audit crawler before changing server settings.

22. Noindex directives and conflicting indexing instructions

A noindex instruction tells supporting search engines not to include a page in their index. It can appear in a robots meta tag or an HTTP X-Robots-Tag header.

Accidental noindex on an important page can remove it from search after Google processes the instruction. Conflicting directives require investigation; adding index does not necessarily override noindex. Sources · Directive specifications

Check the page’s intended role first. Noindex may be appropriate for some utility pages. For pages intended to rank, align the instructions across plugins, templates, and server headers.

23. URLs blocked by robots.txt

A robots.txt rule prevents a crawler from accessing a URL or resource.

An unintended block can stop Google from retrieving important content or seeing updated indexing instructions. However, blocking crawling does not reliably remove a URL from search: Google may know about it through links. Source

Identify the exact matching rule and confirm whether the restriction is intentional. If you need Google to process a noindex directive, the page generally needs to remain crawlable. Robots.txt is also not a security mechanism for protecting private information.

24. Canonical problems

A canonical declaration identifies the preferred URL for duplicate or closely similar content. Problems include malformed URLs, conflicting targets, or references to pages that redirect, fail, or carry incompatible indexing instructions.

Incorrect signals can make it harder for Google to select the intended version. A missing canonical alone is not automatically a serious problem, and a canonical declaration is a signal rather than a guaranteed instruction. Source

Choose an appropriate, accessible target and align internal links, redirects, sitemap entries, and canonical declarations. Do not canonicalize unrelated pages simply to remove warnings.

25. Redirect chains and loops

A redirect chain sends a request through intermediate URLs before reaching its destination. A loop sends requests around repeatedly without a usable endpoint.

Unnecessary chains add requests and delay access. Loops can prevent visitors and crawlers from reaching the content entirely. Redirects themselves are normal and useful when implemented correctly. Source

Update internal links to point directly to the final URL. Where possible, redirect obsolete addresses to the correct destination in one step. Fix conflicting rules between WordPress, the server, and any CDN.

26. Sitemap inconsistencies

An XML sitemap may list URLs that redirect, return errors, contain noindex, or identify another canonical URL. It may also omit pages you want search engines to discover.

These inconsistencies reduce the usefulness of the sitemap as a guide to your preferred content. A sitemap helps discovery, but inclusion does not guarantee crawling or indexing. Likewise, an omitted page can still be discovered through links. Source

Keep sitemap entries aligned with accessible, preferred URLs intended for search. Confirm that sitemap inspection completed before treating a page as missing.

27. Potential orphan pages

A potential orphan page exists in the content inventory but has no incoming internal links found during the audit.

Without useful internal links, visitors may struggle to reach it and search engines receive less internal context about its place on the site. A sitemap or external link may still allow discovery. Source

Verify the finding against crawl coverage. Excluded sections, JavaScript-generated links, and incomplete scans can produce apparent orphans. Add relevant links from categories, navigation, or related content when the page should be part of the public browsing journey.

28. Broken images

An image URL fails to provide the intended resource. Common causes include deleted files, incorrect paths, migration errors, CDN problems, and access restrictions.

Broken images can remove useful product detail, instructions, or visual evidence. They also prevent the unavailable image from serving its intended role in image search. Google needs access to image resources to discover and process them. Source

Repair the URL, restore the file, or replace the image. Check responsive and lazy-loaded versions as well as the main image source. Confirm the failure is not limited to the audit crawler.

29. Broken external links

An outbound link points to an unavailable page on another website.

This mainly affects the usefulness of your content. Visitors cannot follow the recommendation, source, or supporting evidence you provided. A broken outbound link alone should not be treated as proof of a ranking penalty.

Replace it with a current, relevant destination or remove it if it no longer helps the reader. Check unexpected failures manually: some sites reject automated requests even when their pages remain accessible to visitors.

30. Invalid JSON-LD syntax

JSON-LD is a format used to provide structured information about a page. Missing commas, invalid quotation marks, or broken brackets can make the markup unreadable.

Malformed markup may prevent search engines from using the affected structured data and can affect eligibility for supported rich-result features. This does not automatically prevent the underlying page from being indexed. Source

Correct the syntax, then validate the relevant schema type and required properties. Valid JSON alone does not establish rich-result eligibility, and valid structured data never guarantees a rich result. Source

31. Empty or minimal main content

The page contains little meaningful main content after navigation, footer text, and other repeated elements are excluded.

This can reveal an unfinished page, an empty category, missing product details, or a rendering problem. However, short content is not automatically low quality. Google has no universal minimum word count for ranking. Source

Ask whether the page satisfies its purpose. Add useful specifications, explanations, examples, or answers where needed. Avoid padding. If content depends on JavaScript, investigate rendering before assuming the visitor-facing page is empty.

32. Missing or incomplete social preview metadata

Social metadata, including Open Graph and platform-specific card tags, helps services build previews when someone shares a link. Missing fields can lead to a poor title, an unsuitable image, or an unhelpful summary. Source

The primary impact is on sharing, presentation, and referral opportunities. Completing these fields should not be presented as a guaranteed organic ranking improvement.

Provide a relevant title, summary, image, and URL. Check that the image is publicly accessible, and test important pages using the relevant platform’s preview tools.

33. Heading hierarchy issues

Examples include empty headings and a subsection that jumps from H2 to H4 without a clear structural reason.

Logical headings make long pages easier to scan and help assistive-technology users navigate. Skipped levels are therefore useful accessibility and content-structure checks. They are not automatically a Google ranking penalty. Sources · Google’s SEO guidance

Use headings to describe the relationship between sections. Remove empty elements and choose heading levels according to structure. Control appearance with styling rather than selecting a heading level solely for its size.

Which issues should you fix first?

Prioritize findings by the importance of the affected page, the number of affected URLs, and the actual consequence.

Start with valuable pages that are inaccessible, unintentionally excluded from indexing, caught in redirect loops, or associated with incorrect canonical signals. Then repair broken internal routes, missing essential content, and template defects affecting many pages.

Next, improve titles, descriptions, images, and content organization where those changes make the page clearer or more useful. Review editorial flags in context instead of treating every warning as an instruction to change the page.

After a fix, check the live public URL and run a fresh audit. For indexing-related changes, also inspect the page in Google Search Console. A successful audit confirms what the tool could evaluate at that time; it does not guarantee indexing or a particular ranking.