Measured 31 August 2026 via the PYC Bath Architect Digital Visibility Index. Every figure is objective and reproducible from the methodology. Spotted an error? Request a correction.
1 critical problem found. These are specific, checkable faults on the site — not opinions about it.
CriticalThe site is not served over HTTPSBrowsers mark it as not secure, and it is a ranking signal in its own right.
Worth fixingNo XML sitemap foundSearch engines have to discover every page by following links. On a small site that is survivable; on a large one it is not.
Worth fixingNo structured data on the homepageNothing tells a search engine or an assistant what this business is, where it is, or what it does — in machine-readable terms.
Recorded alongside the measurement to make it easier to judge, but carrying no weight in the Digital Visibility Score. See the methodology.
Companies House
No confident match on the registered name
Real-user speed (CrUX)
Too little traffic to appear in Chrome’s public dataset
Lighthouse (lab, mobile)
Performance 90 · accessibility 88 · best practices 74 · SEO 85 — biggest losses: Document does not have a meta description; Reduce unused CSS; Network dependency tree
Google profile detail
1 photo · unclaimed · no description · no hours listed
Backlinks
40 referring domains · 44 links · rank 7
Site structure
25 pages crawled · 22.9 internal links per page · reachable in: contact 1 click, about 1 click · 0% of links use a generic anchor
James Gallie’s lowest-scoring pillars among those we publish remediation guidance for:
Visibility (0/100) — read topical authority on why ranking breadth across a sector beats chasing single terms. Background on analysing this pillar: visibility.