Google Issues Advisory: Audit Tool Scores Are Not Definitive Indicators for Technical SEO

In a recent guidance to website owners and SEO professionals, Google LLC cautioned against heavy reliance on software-generated audit scores when conducting technical search engine optimization (SEO) reviews. According to Martin Splitt of Google’s Search Relations team, automated checklists and numerical metrics must be complemented by deeper, site-specific evaluation and expert judgement.

Framework for Context-Driven Technical Audits

Splitt introduced a three-step framework designed to shift audits from “tool first” to “context first”:

1. Use tools and guidelines to spot potential issues – automated crawls, diagnostics, and baseline checks help identify where attention may be needed.
2. Create a report customised to the specific site – rather than generic output, emphasise the site’s architecture, technology stack, publishing model and maintenance activity.
3. Make actionable recommendations based on the site’s actual needs – weigh findings by practical impact and implementation effort; not all flagged items warrant the same priority.

Splitt emphasised that before running diagnostic tools, auditors should first seek to understand the site’s technology and content model, and then classify findings by the effort required to fix them and the potential impact on crawling or indexing.

Example: Interpreting 404 Errors

The advisory includes specific commentary on common metrics that audit tools often mis-interpret. For example, a high number of “404 Not Found” responses may not automatically signify a technical issue:

“A high number of 404s, for instance, is expected if you removed a lot of content recently. That’s not a problem. It’s a normal consequence of that. But if you have an unexplained rise in 404 responses, though, that’s something you want to point out and investigate…”

In short: the raw 404 count is less meaningful than whether the pattern reflects expected site changes or signals something unexpected. Google’s own Google Search Console “Crawl Stats” report is referenced as a source of data to help site-owners detect whether 404 behaviour aligns with regular maintenance or indicates an underlying problem.

Why This Advisory Matters

The caution from Google arises amid a broader trend: SEO-audit platforms increasingly emphasise scoring systems, often presenting a simplified numeric result (“Your site scores 87/100”) that can mislead stakeholders into believing optimisation is fully compliant. Google’s remarks suggest three main risks:

• Misplaced prioritisation: Tools may flag many low-impact items while missing higher-risk issues tied to a site’s unique structure or publishing pattern.
• Lack of site-specific nuance: For example, an international site might need hreflang checks, whereas a single-language site does not — a tool may not differentiate appropriately.
• False sense of completion: Relying on a score can give the impression that the audit is “done,” when in fact ongoing monitoring and operational judgement remain essential.

For website operators—especially those with large content archives, international versions, or frequent publishing—this means that technical SEO cannot be entirely “outsourced” to automated tools. Expertise in architecture, content flows, user experience and change-management remains vital.

Practical Implications for Site Owners & Agencies

• Prioritise understanding the site’s context (platform, content model, internationalisation, publishing cadence) before acting on tool output.
• Use audit tools as diagnostic inputs, not as the authority on site health.
• Group issues by impact × effort to focus on what will make the biggest difference (e.g., issues that block crawling or indexing) rather than chasing every minor flag.
• Beware the “score chase”: a high number on an audit tool may mask underlying risks; conversely, a lower score may not mean major problems if the flagged items are irrelevant to the specific site model.
• Ensure communication between technical teams, SEO specialists and business stakeholders so that audit recommendations align with business goals and site architecture.

Outlook

As tool-vendors continue to evolve their automated checklists and scoring capabilities, Google’s guidance reinforces the notion that raw automation is insufficient for effective technical SEO. Site complexity, language variants, platform intricacies, and change-history all demand human assessment layered atop tool output.

In practise, this means organisations with multi-language sites, large content volumes, or rapid publishing workflows will benefit most from audits that combine human expertise with tool-driven triage rather than relying solely on numerical audit scores.