6 inputs before we touch the site
Can we fix the technical path? Yes: 6 checks show what needs attention before changes begin. We compare published content with structured data and page access.
Send these 7 items before kickoff:
- Priority URLs: name the pages that matter to your business.
- Page groups: identify templates for product, service, organization or author pages.
- Current llms.txt: share its location, if the file exists.
- Schema samples: provide example URLs with structured data.
- Access rules: point us to relevant crawler directives and settings.
- Publishing route: tell us whether changes go through a CMS, developer or release process.
- Approver: name the person who can clear content or infrastructure edits.
We use this list to agree which pages and changes are included. Missing access does not stop a review. It may limit direct implementation.
At DigitalMedia1, we tie every finding to a URL or template. Your developer can act without translating a broad checklist. For a wider baseline, connect this work to a GEO audit or the AI search visibility overview.
How do 3 schema.org checks improve page clarity?
3 checks help keep your schema.org graph aligned with visible site facts. We review entity details, page relationships and consistency across templates. Markup should describe what the page supports.
First, we compare structured data with visible page information. Next, we look for duplicate or conflicting descriptions. Then, we map which page types need changes and which do not.
The review records:
- Entity details that need a reliable on-site source.
- Relationships that should stay consistent across page types.
- Markup that no longer matches the published page.
- Templates to retest after a site or content change.
Validation can flag structural issues. It cannot confirm an unclear page makes an accurate claim. We document the intended graph and covered pages. Your team gets a usable maintenance reference.
If markup implementation is the main task, see our schema markup service. The schema guide explains the decisions behind the structure.
4 technical surfaces in one review
4 surfaces make up the review: schema.org, llms.txt, crawler access and rendering. We check each against your selected pages and templates. We agree the review window before work starts. It is not set by a platform.
| Surface | What we inspect | Review window | What you send |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schema.org graph | Entity details and page relationships | Agreed review | Example URLs and markup |
| llms.txt file | Useful links, relevance and upkeep | Agreed review | File URL or draft |
| Crawler access | Directives and settings you control | Agreed review | Relevant access rules |
| Page rendering | Visible content on representative URLs | Agreed review | Priority pages and template notes |
For llms.txt, the decision is whether selected pages form a useful reference. We check that links work and still match your site. We do not add sections just to make the file longer.
Read the llms.txt guide before deciding whether your site needs a file. Or review our llms.txt implementation service for direct help.
The 5-step technical run of show
5 steps take the work from page selection to verified changes. You see each finding, its owner and the next action before implementation.
- Confirm pages: We agree priority URLs, templates and the publishing route.
- Inspect signals: We check schema.org, llms.txt where present, access settings and rendered content.
- Rank actions: You get findings ordered by relevance. Each names the affected page or template.
- Make approved edits: We work within your access. We coordinate with your CMS owner or developer. Work can start within 24 hours of confirmed payment.
- Retest changes: We check agreed examples after deployment. We record anything still open.
A written quote follows the agreed page set and implementation tasks. You receive it within 2 working days, before payment. The final handoff separates observed issues from recommendations. It also gives your team maintenance notes.
For visibility tracking after technical work, connect the review with AI visibility monitoring.
What can these technical changes control?
2 things are within this review: accurate site information and the technical access you manage. We can verify agreed file, markup and page changes after deployment. Your team gets a record of what changed.
An llms.txt file cannot make Perplexity or another service fetch, use or cite a page. The platform controls its own discovery and answer choices. Schema validation checks markup structure. It cannot confirm how an assistant interprets the content. We commit to agreed implementation and verification, not a citation outcome.
Use the review to separate technical work from content work. If pages need clearer answers, pair technical changes with content for AI answers. If site facts and entity relationships need attention, see entity and knowledge graph work. For platform-specific visibility work, review Perplexity optimization.
Send us 3 items: priority URLs, your current llms.txt file and the release approver's name. We return a written quote within 2 working days.
How it works
- Confirm the page setSend priority URLs, template groups and the publishing route. We agree which pages and edits are included.
- Inspect the current setupWe review schema.org, llms.txt where present, access rules and representative rendered pages.
- Rank the findingsYou get an ordered list tied to URLs or templates. Each item names an owner and next action.
- Make approved changesWe implement agreed edits where access allows. We coordinate with your CMS owner or developer.
- Retest and hand offWe check deployed changes on agreed examples. Your team gets open items and upkeep notes.
Frequently asked questions
How do you decide whether our site needs llms.txt?
3 checks guide the decision: clear reference pages, current links and an owner for upkeep. We review the file or proposed page list against your site. If it adds no useful direction, we say so. File creation alone is not the goal.
Can you add schema.org to our current CMS?
1 publishing route determines how we proceed: your CMS, developer workflow or release process. First, we identify the page templates and markup that need attention. If access permits, we make agreed edits and retest the deployed pages with your technical owner.
What should we send for a crawler and rendering check?
4 inputs get the review moving: priority URLs, representative templates, relevant access rules and your release contact. Add your current llms.txt and schema examples, if available. We use the URLs to compare intended access with the content rendered on those pages.
Will llms.txt make Perplexity cite our pages?
1 file cannot direct Perplexity to fetch or cite a specific page. The platform controls its own discovery and answer selection. We can check the published file, confirm its links and review accessible page content. Then we report what we verified.
How long does the technical AEO work take?
3 factors shape the sequence: page template count, available access and your publishing process. We confirm the review window and dependencies before implementation. Your handoff lists completed checks and retested pages. It also names items awaiting release or approval.
Do you check JavaScript-rendered pages?
1 representative rendered page can show whether essential content appears as intended. We compare selected pages with published content and note reproducible mismatches. Send URLs and known rendering constraints before kickoff. We can then include the right examples.
Tell us about your project
Answer four quick questions and a manager will send you a plan, timing and a price range within the hour. Everything stays confidential.
Loading the form…