I just built a small site and have relied heavily on SmartCrawl to help ensure that it's SEO-friendly. Here are some notes of minor concern related to the Checkup reporting:
1) When viewing the SEO data on a page, it doesn't contain the detail from the admin Checkup report. This results in warnings with no detail, an indication that something is wrong but no specifics about where the problem is.
Example: Image ALTs : The page checkup only reported (something like) "images are missing keywords in alt text". No, all of the images have full alt-text with keywords. Only the admin-level checkup identified a single image as the problem. This is the pin_it_button.png that is inserted by the Floating Social plugin for Pinterest. OK, how can I put an alt on an image that isn't coming from my site?
2) H1 Headings. The recommendation = warning says "Multiple H1s are being used on this page.". Then "Want to improve? Use more keywords in your H1 header ..." Multiple H1s and keywords in H1s are two different concepts that should be noted separately.
Also, as it turns out, I have no H1s in any of my pages. However, the theme inserts the site name into the page banner with H1, and then each page gets the page/post Title in an H1 at the top as well. To resolve this issue I'll have to change the theme to use H2 for the Titles and change my in-line H2's to H3's. On one hand, I'm glad that SmartCrawl helped to find this anomaly. On the other, I had to look at the page source to understand what it was warning about. More info in the report would help.
But on that "Use more keywords in your H1 header ...", I actually have taken care to do that and right below the warning is "Good Work! Your Header and Keywords correspond". So it's warning and then telling me it's OK. Some clarity in this area would help.
3) Meta descriptions. The counts are off. When entering text in meta fields in the page, it shows the red>yellow>green>yellow>red guide. That guide does not correspond to the checkups. So for example (and not accurate but just as a general example) The page meta editor reports a field is green (within 160 characters) but the checkup says it's 202 characters. If I cut text for the admin-level checkup then the field in the page will be red for too few characters. So please check all of these fields for accurate character counts.
4) Robots.txt warning: "We located the robots.txt file and search engine crawlers have access to do their job. However, we haven't been able to find any sitemap information in it." Um, whose fault is that. Do I need to manually put the generated sitemap.xml into my robots.txt?
5) URL Structure: keywords : warns "The keyword count in your URL is low. Adding keywords from the page to your URL can increase your search click-through rate.". This is coming from the admin/site-level checkup.
Which page is it talking about? On a site with a large number of pages we would need to hunt through each page and its metadata to see which ones had a slug that was short on keywords.
On this small site there are a couple slugs that are single-word, with that word being in the keywords. I don't want a longer slug. Are we sure that search engines penalize short slugs, even when the slug is included in the meta keywords?
6) Anchor Tags : Similar to above, the page-level checkup has no detail. The site-level checkup shows what anchor is of concern but doesn't say what page it's on.
I found the code in question. This is a link that's inserted by Floating Social for Pinterest:
It thinks that href is an anchor. Bug?
7) On pages, we can see this : "Subheadings have no keywords" "Using keywords in any of your subheadings (such as H2's or H3's) will help both the user and search engines quickly figure out what your article is about. It's best practice to include your focus keywords in at least one subheading if you can."
That checkup is not done at the site level, only at the page level.
And at the page level it is incorrect. I have ensured that my H2 and H3's included adequate keywords. So for some reason this isn't finding them.