Case study
We ran SearchBlueprint on SearchBlueprint
July 11, 2026. Every number below is from the actual reports, unedited.
The setup
The day our domain went live, we pointed our own audit at it. Standard scope, no special treatment. The grade came back: C, 78 out of 100. Not the number you want on the tool's own website.
What it caught
The big one was the sitemap. It still listed over 500 URLs that sit behind our login wall. Google would request each one and get redirected to the same login screen. The audit read the damage precisely: the login page counted 18 times as duplicate content, canonical tags pointing away from every crawled URL (an F in canonicalization), and four indexability failures.
It also flagged five pages shipping a 15-character title and graded the homepage D on content depth. None of this was visible from inside the product. All of it was in the report within four minutes.
What we changed
Four fixes, all shipped the same afternoon: we rebuilt the sitemap around the 47 pages that are actually public, blocked the app routes in robots.txt, set a proper title default with a template for inner pages, and added a FAQ section to the homepage.
The re-audit
| Metric | Before | Same day, after |
|---|---|---|
| Overall grade | C · 78/100 | B · 85/100 |
| Canonicalization | F | A+ |
| Crawling & indexing | D | B |
| Pages Google can reach | 7 | 47 |
Seven points in one afternoon, from fixes the report ordered by impact.
What it still flags
The content category now grades F. That's not a regression, it's visibility: the crawler finally reaches all 39 of our free tool pages, and most of them are thin. The report is telling us our next block of work, the same way it would tell you yours. When we've done that work, we'll update this page with the new numbers.
Now we do it to our whole portfolio
Since July 14 we run SearchBlueprint against every site we operate, on a schedule. First pass: the free instant check (the same one in the homepage hero) across eight real sites. Three failed it. All three were fixed and re-checked the same night:
digitalmarketingagency.sg
50/100100/100same night, after
Title 61 chars, meta description 167 chars — both past Google's limits
searchblueprint.io (this site)
75/100100/100same night, after
Our own meta description had crept to 229 chars
fussymama.sg
75/100100/100same night, after
Meta description 163 chars
| Site | Before | What the check caught | Same night, after |
|---|---|---|---|
| digitalmarketingagency.sg | 50/100 | Title 61 chars, meta description 167 chars — both past Google's limits | 100/100 |
| searchblueprint.io (this site) | 75/100 | Our own meta description had crept to 229 chars | 100/100 |
| fussymama.sg | 75/100 | Meta description 163 chars | 100/100 |
Honest scope note: those are instant-check scores (title, meta, headings), not the full graded audit — the deep audits on the rest of the portfolio are the next wave, and the deltas will land here. Dogfooding cuts both ways, too: the same night's runs surfaced two bugs in SearchBlueprint itself, which we fixed before writing this paragraph.
The point
The audit found an infrastructure mistake the people who built the product shipped and missed. If it catches us, it will catch something on your site too. The same audit is free, takes about four minutes, and gives you the ranked fix list first.