SEO Work for Named Clients, With the Sources Attached

The one campaign where we can show you everything

Client analytics are not ours to publish. Ours are — so this is the engagement we can open completely, and it happens to be the most instructive one on the list.

The old ghalibashrafi.com ranked on 24 pages, and the reason it was not earning what it should was identical on every one of them — not one of the 24 had a meta description. Google had been writing every snippet itself for a year.

Ranking was never the constraint. The fix was not more content or more links — it was writing 24 descriptions and building the redirect map so nothing landed on a 404 at launch. Two old London URLs alone carried more than two-thirds of the entire site’s visibility, and both now point at a page about London rather than a generic hub, because Google treats a mass redirect to an unrelated hub as a soft 404.

That is the same audit any client gets, run on ourselves, with the embarrassing findings left in.

• ✓The audit found the real problem — a missing meta description on every single ranking page, not a ranking deficiency.
• ✓CTR, not position — every one of the 24 pages ranked and none of them were written to be clicked. Presentation was the bottleneck, not position.
• ✓Two-thirds of the visibility repointed — the two London URLs now land on a page about London, not a generic services hub.
• ✓Nothing left to 404 — all 24 orphaned URLs mapped before launch, with the interim ones flagged in the config for repointing.
• ✓Findings published — including the ones that make us look bad, which is what makes the rest of this page checkable.

We audited our own site the way we audit a client’s and found the same mistake on all 24 pages. Publishing that is more persuasive than any percentage we could have printed next to a logo.