Google’s Warning: Don’t Rely on Tool-Generated Scores for Technical SEO Audits

Google warned against relying on tool-generated scores for technical SEO audits. Search Relations team member Martin Splitt outlined a three-step framework in a Search Central Lightning Talk that emphasizes site-specific context over standardized metrics.

The Three-Step Framework for Technical SEO Audits

The core objective of a technical audit is to ensure that no technical issues prevent or interfere with crawling or indexing. According to Splitt, a technical audit should use checklists and guidelines, but it needs experience and expertise to adapt these guidelines and checklists to the site being audited.

His recommended framework has three phases. First, use tools and guidelines to identify potential issues. Second, create a report tailored to the specific site. Third, make recommendations based on actual site needs. Understanding site technology comes before running diagnostic tools, and findings should be grouped by effort required and potential impact.

Understanding 404 Errors: When Are They Normal?

High 404 counts don’t always mean problems. The red flag is unexplained rises without corresponding website changes. For instance, a high number of 404s is expected if a lot of content was removed recently. That’s not a problem; it’s a normal consequence of that. But if there’s an unexplained rise in 404 responses, that’s something to point out and investigate.

Google Search Console’s Crawl Stats report shows whether 404 patterns match normal site maintenance or indicate technical issues.

Why Context Matters in Technical SEO Audits

Tools generate numerical scores that lack site-specific context. Not everything tools flag carries equal weight. For example, an international site needs hreflang auditing, while a single-language site doesn’t. Splitt emphasized human judgment over automation, saying, “Please, please don’t follow your tools blindly. Make sure your findings are meaningful for the website in question and take the time to prioritize them for maximum impact.”

Talking to people who know the site and its technology can help determine if findings make sense. They can provide valuable insights into the site’s specific needs and help prioritize issues accordingly.

The Risks of Generic Checklists

Generic checklists can waste time on low-impact fixes while missing critical issues. Tool scores may flag normal site behavior as problems and assign priority to issues that don’t affect how search engines crawl content. Understanding when metrics reflect normal operations helps focus audit resources where they matter. This applies whether running internal audits or evaluating agency reports.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Technical SEO Audits

Audit platforms continue adding automated checks and scoring systems, widening the gap between generic findings and actionable recommendations. Google’s guidance reinforces that technical SEO requires expertise beyond tool automation. Sites with international setups, large content archives, or frequent publishing benefit most from context-driven audits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, technical SEO audits should not rely solely on tool-generated scores. A site-specific approach is essential to ensure that audits are effective and efficient. By following Splitt’s three-step framework and considering the site’s unique context, technical SEO audits can be more accurate and actionable. As the field of technical SEO continues to evolve, it’s essential to prioritize human expertise and judgment over automation, and to focus on providing meaningful and actionable recommendations that drive real results.