Water-damage restoration company · Chicago, IL

A technical audit from 11% to 90+, and what an audit does not do on its own

Included because it is the cleanest example of a technical audit on our roster, and an honest one: the audit fixed how the site was indexed, and did not by itself move the term the business exists for.

11% → 90+

Technical audit score

Duplicate pages without canonicals, cleared

85k → 9k

Quarterly impressions, junk removed

The situation

A 60-minute-response restoration company whose site was being shown 85,000 times a quarter and clicked 0.1% of the time, because Google was indexing dozens of duplicate pages.

What we built

A single audit sweep: 68 duplicate pages without canonical tags resolved, and the rest of the crawl issues cleared.

What was recorded

Quarter	Clicks	Impressions	Mobile position
May–Jul 2025	86	84,991	33.0
Aug–Oct 2025	121	31,743	30.3
Nov 2025–Jan 2026	111	15,364	18.3
Feb–Apr 2026	119	19,784	21.0
May–Jul 2026	109	9,447	25.5

Google Search Console, quarterly, May 2025 to July 2026.

The screenshots

Taken from the account itself. The client’s name, domain and account are pixelated; nothing else is edited. Open any one at full size.

Search Console, May 2025 to September 2026: impressions collapse as the duplicates leave the index, clicks hold.

Search Console, June–August 2026 against March–May.

How to read it

Clicks have been flat at 110–120 a quarter for a year while impressions fell from 85,000 to under 10,000: the duplicate-page exposure came out of the index, which is what the audit was for. The site is now clicked at 1.4–5% instead of 0.1%. What ranks is the brand; “water damage restoration chicago” sits at position 34.8. The next step is pages and content for the emergency terms, which an audit does not write.