The playbook
Hreflang Tags: Review Process
A useful hreflang tags review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: URL, language, alternate URL, reciprocal check. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Map equivalent localized pages together and check the references in both directions. The French version of a service guide should refer to its actual English equivalent, not automatically to the English homepage. Verify that alternate destinations are available and appropriate.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Create a complete set of equivalent localized URLs | Is the supporting URL current and traceable? |
| Check language codes and reciprocal references | Does language support the decision being made? |
| Keep canonical choices consistent with localization | Can the next owner verify reciprocal check? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to referencing pages that are unavailable or not equivalent. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, repair the alternate set and remove unsupported mappings. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or query record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to valid alternate-page relationships using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Keep page purpose visible throughout the work. A technically valid page can still fail to answer the reader’s question. Separate access and discovery problems from content problems so that the assigned action matches the cause.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now