Website Audit for Swiss SMEs: The 8 Most Common SEO Mistakes
What happens when you test three completely different websites?
By Alexander Schneider, founder of OOTO — Out of the Ordinary
Over the past few weeks, I've taken a closer look at three websites: a spirits brand, a jewelry online store, and a restaurant.
I encountered similar problems with all three. The metadata wasn't properly maintained, some headings were structured incorrectly, images were unnecessarily large, and the navigation was unclear. These weren't exotic technical details, but rather the basics that should actually go without saying for a good website.
On the surface, the websites appeared cohesive. Technically and structurally, however, the foundation was lacking in many areas.
This kind of work is rarely particularly exciting, but it often determines whether a website will be visible in organic search results.
The following eight points came up in all three audits.
Mistake 1: Unknown SEO Score
None of the three companies knew how their website would fare in a technical review. In one audit, the overall score was 49%. In the “Technology and Meta” category, it was 27%. A second website looked good and was on brand, but it also had technical gaps when reviewed.
The score summarizes a large number of individual factors. These include metadata, internal linking, headings, canonical tags, status codes, and technical errors. Some of these factors determine whether Google can crawl, index, and rank a page. Others relate to the quality and structure of the website.
These metrics are crucial for evaluating a website. They indicate what portion of the lack of visibility is attributable to the website itself and can be resolved there. A low score is therefore part of the problem, and improving it is part of the solution. Seobility considers an overall score of 80% or higher to be a solid foundation. For the areas of technology, meta tags, and structure, the tool recommends scores above 90%. We use the same target values in our audits. Most SME websites we review score between 35% and 55%.
On-site SEO is a component of search engine optimization. Backlinks, mentions, and PR are other factors that influence rankings. For smaller brands, it’s only worth investing in these areas once the technical foundation is in place. Until then, external signals point to a website that Google cannot interpret accurately.
Mistake 2: Neglecting Title Tags and Meta Descriptions
This error occurred in all three audits and is one of the easiest to fix. On some pages, the title was simply “Home.” Product pages included the internal product name in the title, even though customers search for other terms. In some cases, meta descriptions were missing entirely or were automatically generated from the page content.
The title tag serves two purposes. It helps Google categorize a page's topic, and it is one of the first elements a user sees in search results. A title like "Home" fulfills neither of these purposes.
In one audit, more than 60% of the pages lacked a properly maintained meta description. On another website, the title tags were identical on numerous pages. Furthermore, the content on these pages differed only slightly. If multiple URLs have similar content, Google may group them as duplicates and index only one of them. In Search Console, such cases appear as duplicate or canonical warnings.
Every relevant page therefore needs its own distinct theme. This includes a unique title, an appropriate H1 heading, and enough original content. The meta description summarizes the page’s content so that the user knows what to expect after clicking.
The length guidelines are approximate. In practice, about 50 to 60 characters for the title and 150 to 160 characters for the meta description have proven effective. Google does not mandate these values, but it does truncate longer entries in the display.
Mistake 3: H1 Headings That Don't Convey Any Meaning
The H1 is the most important heading on a page and describes what the page is about. In all three audits, this feature was underutilized. “Welcome to our website,” “Discover our products,” or “A warm welcome” are suitable as greetings. As H1 headings, however, they do not provide any information about what the page offers or what topic it covers.
An effective H1 tag describes the page’s content. “Handcrafted Gin from Zurich” identifies the product and its origin, thereby categorizing the page under a specific topic. Google recommends using terms that people search for in prominent places on a page. These explicitly include the page title and the main heading.
In one of the audits, the homepage lacked an H1 tag. The hero text was displayed in large font but was technically formatted as a regular paragraph. Visitors could visually identify the main heading, but the corresponding structure was missing from the HTML.
Google may use visually highlighted text to identify the main title of a page. However, this identification is not guaranteed. Therefore, text intended to be the main heading must also be technically marked up as an H1.
Mistake 4: Navigation that overwhelms rather than guides
On one of the online stores, the main navigation bar had 23 visible menu items. In addition, there were duplicate entries, empty categories, and links to 404 pages.
First and foremost, this is a problem for users. Anyone who has to work their way through many similar menu items will find it harder to locate relevant content. At the same time, navigation is a central part of internal linking and is therefore important for search engines. Google follows internal links to find pages and understand a website’s structure. Important pages must therefore be logically accessible and have appropriate internal links. Links to deleted pages, empty categories, and duplicate entries complicate this structure.
There is no fixed upper limit on the number of menu items. The often-cited rule of seven to nine items has no scientific basis. A large online store requires a different navigation structure than a website with ten subpages. What matters is the structure behind the numbers. The most important sections belong at the top level. Additional content is accessed through subcategories.
With the 23 menu items identified in the audit, the number itself was not the only problem. Combined with empty categories, duplicate entries, and broken links, it showed that the navigation had grown over time without anyone ever reviewing the structure as a whole. A navigation system must be easy to understand. Its size should be determined by the content it offers.
Mistake 5: Images without alt text
In all three audits, a large portion of the images lacked usable alt text. This is a problem for two reasons.
First, alt text helps search engines understand the content of an image. Google also uses the page context, the image title, and computer vision for this purpose, but it considers alt text to be the most important attribute for providing additional image information. Therefore, it is essential for product images, infographics, and other images relevant to the content.
Second, alt text is an integral part of accessibility. People who use screen readers rely on text alternatives when an image conveys information. For decorative images, an empty alt text is the right choice so that the screen reader skips the image.
Alt text briefly and specifically describes what is shown in the image or what function it serves. “London Dry Gin with twelve botanicals” fulfills this purpose. A filename like “IMG_4872.jpg” does not. A relevant keyword may be included if it fits the image. Google explicitly warns against keyword stuffing in alt text.
Mistake 6: Load Time and Image Size
In all three audits, images that were too large were one of the main causes of long loading times. In some cases, photos ranging from three to five megabytes were uploaded directly to the website, even though a fraction of that file size would have been sufficient for display. With a fast connection, this is hardly noticeable. On mobile devices and on slower networks, however, the loading time increases noticeably.
Google measures loading performance using metrics such as the Core Web Vitals. For Largest Contentful Paint, a value of 2.5 seconds or less is considered good. This refers to the time it takes for the largest visible content element to load in the browser. On home and landing pages, this is usually a large image.
Core Web Vitals are factored into Google's ranking systems. While they do not solely determine a website's ranking, they are among the technical factors that Google considers when evaluating page experience. A fast website is also more enjoyable for users.
For images, loading times can be improved with minimal effort. They are exported at the required size, compressed, and, when possible, served in modern formats such as WebP or AVIF. A file several megabytes in size is rarely necessary if the image on the website only needs a fraction of that resolution.
The extent to which performance can be improved depends on the system used. With modular systems, certain technical adjustments are beyond your control. Wix itself points out that not every recommendation from external performance tools can be implemented. A fast website starts with the basics. Image size is one of them.
Mistake 7: No organic rankings despite a strong brand
This finding surprised me the most during the three audits. One of the companies has an exceptional product—4.9 stars based on more than 100 Google reviews, international awards, and mentions on established Swiss platforms. Nevertheless, Seobility showed no organic rankings for the keywords we analyzed.
The brand is visible outside of its own website. However, the website lacks the necessary elements to leverage this strength for search. There is very little content for relevant search queries, internal linking is weak, and structured data is used only inadequately. The brand’s expertise and reputation are only partially reflected on the website.
Google recommends using relevant terms in prominent locations, making pages discoverable through internal links, and using structured data where it helps users understand the content. Structured data is not a general ranking factor. However, it provides Google with additional information about a page.
With Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, this foundation is becoming increasingly important. Google confirms that the well-known SEO fundamentals also apply to its generative search features. For a page to appear as a source there, it must be indexed and approved for regular Google Search. ChatGPT, Perplexity, and other AI search systems do not use the same mechanisms. However, the general approach is similar. Content must be discoverable, understandable, and clearly attributable to a source.
A strong brand alone isn't enough. The website must reflect that strength.
Mistake 8: The CMS as a Technical Bottleneck
Two of the three websites reviewed are hosted on Wix. That in itself isn’t an SEO problem. Wix has made technical improvements in recent years. The platform supports server-side rendering, custom title tags and meta descriptions, canonical tags, redirects, customizations to the robots.txt file, and structured data. This makes it possible to implement the basics of SEO.
The limitations arise when a website needs to go beyond the basics. The more complex it becomes, the more important technical control becomes. This applies to individual performance optimizations, specialized integrations, and requirements that fall outside the intended functionality of a modular system. Wix itself points out that certain recommendations from external performance tools cannot be implemented by the website operator. In such cases, the operator is dependent on how the platform continues to develop its infrastructure.
For companies that want to sell through their website or grow organically, we therefore recommend platforms where the operator retains control—typically Shopify, WordPress, or Webflow. In both Wix cases reviewed during the audits, we recommended migration and carried it out together with the client. The effort involved is greater than optimizing the existing system. However, it’s a one-time expense, whereas the limitations of a website builder result in additional costs every time a new requirement arises.
For a simple online presence without sales functionality or growth goals, Wix is sufficient. The CMS must meet the website's requirements. As soon as it limits them, the choice of platform becomes an open question.
Scope of a Website Audit
A website audit is more than just a list of errors. After the audit, it should be clear where the website stands, which issues are relevant, and what needs to be addressed first. To that end, we examine five areas.
Technical and Meta elements include title tags, meta descriptions, canonical tags, indexing, status codes, load times, and Core Web Vitals. Structure includes navigation, internal linking, URL structure, and site architecture. Content includes the quality of existing text, coverage of relevant search queries, heading structure, alt text, and duplicate content. For locally operating businesses, local SEO includes the Google Business Profile, local search terms, reviews, and consistent business information. GEO and AI Search assess how clearly a business, its services, and its content can be classified by AI-based search systems. Structured data helps convey information about a page unambiguously. Google uses it to understand content and prepare it for specific search results.
Each area receives a rating and specific recommendations. Prioritization determines the value of the audit. An indexing error is fixed before a missing meta description, even if both appear in the audit. An audit therefore does more than just show what is missing; it determines what needs to be done first.
Five Quick Checks for SMEs
Not every weakness can be corrected in a matter of minutes. However, the most common problems can be quickly identified and, in some cases, corrected right away.
Title Tags and Meta Descriptions. Every important page needs its own title and an appropriate meta description. What matters most is not so much the character count as whether the page’s topic and value are clear.
H1 headings. The main heading describes what the page is about. Greetings and taglines leave this key space unused.
Alt text. Informative and functional images need alt text. Decorative images should have blank alt text. It would be wrong to assign a single keyword to every image across the board.
Image sizes. Images are exported at the size at which the website displays them and are then compressed. A fixed limit, such as 150 KB, is not a reliable benchmark, because a hero image has different requirements than a thumbnail.
Google Search Console. There, you can see which pages Google has indexed, which search queries bring visitors to your site, and whether there are any technical issues. The URL inspection tool shows how Google reads individual pages.
To get a first impression, simply search for “site:your-domain.ch”in Google. However, the “site:” operator does not provide a complete indexing report. The actual status of a website can only be checked in Search Console.
Conclusion
None of the three companies intentionally did anything wrong. The websites were built, functioned well in day-to-day use, and made a good impression to the outside world. Technically and structurally, however, they lacked the fundamentals in many areas.
On-site optimization is just one part of the bigger picture. Backlinks, mentions, and PR also influence rankings. For a technically weak website, it’s not worth focusing on on-site optimization until the foundation is in place. The question, therefore, isn’t which individual SEO measure is missing, but whether the website’s technology, structure, and content work together effectively. Much of this work remains invisible to visitors and is therefore often neglected. Digital work begins with what no one sees.
OOTO's website audit reviews these five areas for CHF 1,500 within three business days.
