Digital Visibility Score: 41 / 100 · Rank 70 of 80
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 .
Each pillar scored 0–100 against the sector median for this index. The final column is this firm's distance from that median.
Pillar performance against the sector median. Bars right of centre are above the median, left are below.
Speed & CWV -24 Technical -25 Local presence +0.5 Visibility 0 AI search presence 0 Content & trust +8
These are specific, checkable faults on the site — not opinions about it.
Worth fixing No XML sitemap found Search engines have to discover every page by following links. On a small site that is survivable; on a large one it is not. Worth fixing No structured data on the homepage Nothing tells a search engine or an assistant what this business is, where it is, or what it does — in machine-readable terms. Worth fixing Very little published content The homepage carries 101 words and the site links to no blog, news or insights section. There is little here for a search engine to match, or for an assistant to quote.
Ranks for 0 of 12 keywords, in the local 3-pack for 0 keywords.
Keyword Position architects Bath not in top 100 architect Bath not in top 100 architectural services Bath not in top 100 house extension architect Bath not in top 100 planning application architect Bath not in top 100 listed building architect Bath not in top 100 residential architects Bath not in top 100 commercial architects Bath not in top 100 self build architect Bath not in top 100 loft conversion architect Bath not in top 100 barn conversion architect Bath not in top 100 conservation architect Bath not in top 100
This firm against the sector median and the index leader, Designscape Architects, on every pillar.
Speed & CWV 39 Technical 63 Local presence 79 Visibility 0 AI search presence 0 Content & trust 45
Watson Bertram & Fell trails Designscape Architects by 229 points across 6 pillars, but 52% of that is Speed & CWV and AI search presence alone.
Named in 0 of 5 AI answers. A domain citation is stronger evidence than a name mention.
✗ Who are the best architects in Bath? ✗ Which architect in Bath would you recommend for a house extension? ✗ Top rated architectural practices in Bath ✗ I need an architect in Bath - who should I contact? ✗ Conservation architects in Bath
Google Business Profile.
Rating 5 / 5 Reviews 1 Locations 1 Reviews in last 90 days 0 Address matches website yes
What each score is made of. Every input here is in the open dataset , so the arithmetic can be checked rather than taken on trust.
Pillar Score Made up of Content & trust 45 about page: yes · team page: no · credentials: yes · blog or news: no · homepage: 101 words Visibility 0 ranks for 0 of 12 keywords · local 3-pack: 0 Local presence 79 1 reviews · rated 5 · 0 new in 90 days Technical 63 HTTPS: yes · page allows indexing: yes · robots.txt allows crawling: yes · sitemap: no · structured data: no
Speed & CWV: 39/100, below the sector median of 63.
Technical: 63/100, below the sector median of 88.
Designscape Architects leads the index with 80/100. The largest gaps are: Speed & CWV (39 vs 99); AI search presence (0 vs 60); Visibility (0 vs 53).
Build local landing pages for the core keyword basket to lift organic and local-pack appearance.
Publish structured, citable content and entity schema so AI engines surface the business for core local queries.
Cut mobile LCP below 2.5s (optimise images and remove render-blocking resources) — the biggest score and ranking lever.
The firms nearest Watson Bertram & Fell in this ranking, beyond the two either side.
Recorded alongside the measurement to make it easier to judge, but carrying no weight in the Digital Visibility Score. See the methodology .
Companies House Company 05948742 · 19.9 years old · active · SIC 71129 Real-user speed (CrUX) Too little traffic to appear in Chrome’s public dataset Lighthouse (lab, mobile) Performance 49 · accessibility 84 · best practices 81 · SEO 61 — biggest losses: Page is blocked from indexing; Document request latency; Network dependency tree Google profile detail 6 photos · claimed · has a description · hours listed Backlinks 85 referring domains · 95 links · rank 96 Site structure 1 pages crawled · 16 internal links per page · reachable in: contact 1 click, about 1 click · 0% of links use a generic anchor Sitemap declared in robots.txt
Watson Bertram & Fell’s lowest-scoring pillars among those we publish remediation guidance for:
How this is measured: see the index methodology , and the statistical methods behind each pillar. This index is published by PYC ; if you want this score moved, start here .