Measured 29 August 2026 via the PYC Gloucester Restaurant Digital Visibility Index. Every figure is objective and reproducible from the methodology. Spotted an error? Request a correction.
These are specific, checkable faults on the site — not opinions about it.
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.
Themes Google extracted from this business’s reviews, by how often customers raise them. Not scored — this is what people say, not how findable the business is.
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 55 · accessibility 82 · best practices 56 · SEO 85 — biggest losses: Font display; Render-blocking requests; Touch targets do not have sufficient size or spacing.
Google profile detail
187 photos · claimed · has a description · hours listed · 29 of 840 reviews are one star
Backlinks
113 referring domains · 155 links · rank 145
Site structure
1 pages crawled · 37 internal links per page · reachable in: contact 1 click · 0% of links use a generic anchor
The Old Elm Inn’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.