Google Cautions SEO Users

Google has recently reminded website owners and SEO professionals not to rely solely on automated SEO audit tool scores when assessing their site’s performance. According to the company, these scores often fail to capture the full picture and may mislead users into chasing problems that don’t actually exist.

The warning comes from Martin Splitt, a member of Google’s Search Relations team, who shared a detailed explanation during a Search Central Lightning Talk. He introduced a practical, three-step framework for carrying out more accurate and meaningful technical SEO audits that go beyond tool-generated data.

Splitt explained that the main goal of any technical audit should be to ensure that no issues are preventing a website from being properly crawled or indexed by Google. He noted that while checklists and automated tools are useful starting points, they cannot replace human judgment or experience. A proper audit must take into account how each website operates, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

He outlined a clear three-step process to follow when auditing a website. The first step involves using SEO tools and general guidelines to identify potential technical problems. The second step is to prepare a report that is specific to the website being reviewed, filtering out irrelevant findings. The final step is to create a list of recommendations based on the actual needs of the site, prioritising changes that would make the biggest difference.

Splitt highlighted that a deep understanding of a site’s technology and structure should always come before running any automated audit. Without this context, it’s easy to misinterpret tool results or focus on unimportant details. For instance, a website built on a custom content management system might behave differently from one using WordPress, and automated tools don’t always take those differences into account.

He also pointed out that automated tools often flag 404 errors as major problems, when in many cases they are entirely normal. A website that has recently removed outdated pages or consolidated its content will naturally see an increase in 404 responses. This does not mean the site is broken — it simply reflects that content has been reorganised or cleaned up.

However, Splitt warned that an unexplained rise in 404 errors, especially if there have been no significant site changes, could signal a genuine technical issue. He advised using Google Search Console’s Crawl Stats report to compare these patterns against recent maintenance or publishing activity. This can help determine whether the rise is expected or needs further investigation.

One of the most important points he made was that context always outweighs raw data. SEO tools generate scores that can look impressive or alarming, but without context, those scores mean very little. A 95% audit score might not indicate a perfectly optimised site, and a 70% score doesn’t necessarily point to a failing one — it depends entirely on the site’s purpose and structure.

For example, international websites often need to be checked for correct hreflang implementation to help search engines understand language and regional versions. Meanwhile, a local business website operating only in English would not require such checks at all. Automated systems, however, may still mark the absence of hreflang tags as an issue, even when they’re unnecessary.

Splitt encouraged SEO professionals to use their expertise and judgment rather than blindly following what the tools report. “Please, please don’t follow your tools blindly,” he said. “Make sure your findings are meaningful for the website in question and take the time to prioritise them for maximum impact.”

He further suggested working closely with people who understand the site’s technology — such as developers, IT teams, and content managers. They can often confirm whether an issue flagged by an audit tool is valid or simply a false alarm caused by how the site is configured. This kind of collaboration ensures that technical audits are accurate, efficient, and grounded in real knowledge.

Google’s advice serves as a reminder that SEO is not purely mechanical. While automation has made it easier to collect data, it hasn’t replaced the need for human insight. Many automated tools can highlight minor problems that have no real impact on ranking while completely overlooking issues that genuinely affect crawlability, indexing, and user experience.

By understanding when certain audit results represent normal website behaviour — such as temporary spikes in 404s or slow crawl rates after large updates — professionals can focus their time and resources on what truly matters. This helps maintain a healthy, efficient site that performs well over the long term, rather than chasing meaningless metrics.

As SEO tools continue to evolve, many are adding complex scoring systems and automated checks. While these advancements make audits faster, they also widen the gap between generic tool findings and actionable insights. It’s easy to be impressed by high scores, but what matters most is whether the website is technically sound and serving its intended audience effectively.

Ultimately, Google’s guidance highlights that technical SEO requires skill, context, and interpretation. Automation can support the process but cannot replace the experience of a professional who understands a site’s architecture, audience, and business goals. Sites with complex structures, frequent updates, or international reach benefit most from personalised audits that go beyond tool-based numbers.

In summary, Google’s message is clear: treat SEO audit scores as indicators, not answers. Use tools to gather data, but always apply human judgment before acting on it. By combining automation with thoughtful analysis, SEO professionals can deliver results that truly enhance visibility, performance, and user trust.