The playbook
Multi-location SEO: Review Process
A useful multi-location SEO review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: location, profile, page URL, services, hours. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Maintain location-specific hours, services, contact routes, and page ownership. A dealer group or franchise should not assume every branch offers identical products. Test that a location inquiry reaches the correct branch and that closures or relocations are reflected consistently.
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 |
|---|---|
| Maintain one authoritative record per location | Is the supporting location current and traceable? |
| Create useful location pages with unique practical information | Does profile support the decision being made? |
| Report results separately before aggregating the group | Can the next owner verify hours? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to copying one branch's hours services or contact details to all locations. 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, verify each location record and assign an update owner. 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 qualified inquiries per location 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