In our previous tutorial we discussed how to use NotebookLM to audit a page for improvements. We have given some check points to consider while reviewing the page. NotebookLM allows only 500 char as upper limit for submitting instructions. So using the same referenced materials our intention was to create a comprehensive list of check points and based on the site we can select some of the check points as our customization input.
We used the same URLs as we used as referenced material here. Then given these step by step instruction as prompts to get the required check points.
I have to Audit some URLs based on the content or guidelines given here.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/12/google-raters-guidelines-e-e-a-t
https://guidelines.raterhub.com/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-starter-guide?hl=en
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies
No need to give the URLs again as I have already submitted as referenced link to follow, only give me the check points to ask
I got some good output but only 5 points were available.
- Does the content provide value, clarity, and originality per helpful content guidelines?
- Does the page demonstrate E-E-A-T (Expertise, Experience, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness)?
- Are SEO best practices followed, including metadata, mobile optimization, and internal linking?
- Is the content free of spam, misleading information, or manipulative techniques?
- Does the page align with user intent and search relevance?
My final prompt which gave me a full list is here.
give me more such points , give 50 such points with highest to lowest in terms of relevance.
Here are 50 checkpoints organized from highest to lowest relevance for auditing pages based on the provided guidelines:
Highest Relevance
- Does the content demonstrate Expertise, Experience, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-E-A-T)?
- Is the content original, informative, and valuable to users?
- Does the content align with the user’s search intent?
- Is the content factually accurate and supported by credible sources?
- Are headlines and titles descriptive and relevant without being misleading?
- Is the primary purpose of the content to help or inform users rather than manipulate rankings?
- Does the content meet Google’s helpful content guidelines?
- Are the keywords naturally integrated and not overstuffed?
- Is the page content easily readable and free of grammatical errors?
- Does the content provide more value compared to competing pages?
- Are images relevant, high quality, and optimized for web use?
- Is the page free of intrusive ads or pop-ups that disrupt user experience?
- Are the page’s meta titles and descriptions relevant and compelling?
- Is the content well-structured using proper headings and subheadings?
- Does the page load quickly across devices and browsers?
- Is the page mobile-friendly and responsive?
- Are internal links used effectively to guide users to relevant content?
- Does the page link to authoritative and credible external sources?
- Are multimedia elements (videos, infographics) used appropriately to enhance the content?
- Does the content have a clear and actionable call-to-action (CTA)?
Medium Relevance
- Does the URL structure reflect the content’s topic and follow SEO best practices?
- Is the page secure (HTTPS) and free of security vulnerabilities?
- Are structured data and schema markup implemented where appropriate?
- Does the content address common user questions or pain points?
- Is the content free from AI-generated content that lacks originality or value?
- Are canonical tags correctly implemented to avoid duplicate content issues?
- Is the content updated regularly to reflect current information?
- Are breadcrumbs used for easy navigation?
- Does the page provide accurate information about the author, including credentials?
- Are users encouraged to engage with the page through comments, likes, or shares?
- Does the page provide value for both general users and niche audiences?
- Are affiliate or sponsored links clearly labeled and compliant with Google’s guidelines?
- Are trust signals, such as customer testimonials or case studies, included where applicable?
- Is the content actionable, providing steps or solutions to the user’s query?
- Are headings optimized for both readability and SEO?
- Does the site have a clear and easily accessible navigation menu?
- Is the contact or support information visible and easy to use?
- Are the images properly tagged with alt text for accessibility and SEO?
- Does the page avoid spammy or irrelevant outbound links?
- Are pagination and infinite scrolls handled correctly for SEO?
Lower Relevance
- Are font sizes and colors user-friendly and accessible?
- Is the website free of broken links or error pages?
- Does the site’s domain name match the content’s theme?
- Are comments or user-generated content moderated to maintain quality?
- Does the content address local SEO needs (if applicable)?
- Is the use of animation or effects non-distracting?
- Are social sharing buttons available and functional?
- Does the content avoid manipulative practices like hidden text or keyword stuffing?
- Are cookies and tracking disclosures compliant with local regulations (e.g., GDPR)?
- Does the page encourage backlinks naturally through high-quality content?
Notes:
- High Relevance Points (1-20) are critical for content quality, user intent, and core ranking factors.
- Medium Relevance Points (21-40) focus on technical SEO and engagement features.
- Lower Relevance Points (41-50) are additional but helpful to fine-tune user experience and compliance.
By addressing these points, your audit will align with Google’s guidelines and ensure high-quality, user-centric content.
From the above list some issues were already known to me, for example point no 40, 47, 49 are not relevant in this context. Similarly many such points we removed and finally arrived at our checkpoints keeping the 500 char upper limit.
Using checkpoints as reference materials
Instead of using above points as part of customization I copied and pasted all the 50 points in NotebookLM as added sources.
After adding renamed the same as 50 check points.
Now I am ready with my URL to check. Here is what I added to customize entry area.
Audit this page based on the given checkpoints and guidelines available .
https://www.plus2net.com/python/tkinter.php
Audience knows the SEO basics. Be specific, avoid generic advice, and give actionable points.
Finally it generated an audio output after few minutes. It has given me some actionable points like adding author biodata , more visual appealing design etc. Some points I was already aware and some new actionable points I came to know.
After listening to this I added the page top image of a dashboard to address one of the point it raised.
