Case study: this website, measured in public
Every agency shows results you cannot check. This one you can: open the page source, run the speed test, query the DNS. Everything below is a decision made on this site, the number it produced, and the exact way to verify it without taking my word for anything.
What this case study is, and is not
- It is a complete technical record of a site built and launched on 23 August 2026, with measurements taken from the live pages.
- It is not a ranking case study. This domain is days old. Search results take months, and anyone showing you rankings on a week-old domain is showing you something else.
- The ranking numbers get added here as they arrive, including the months where nothing happens. That is the part most case studies quietly leave out.
The starting point
Fifteen hand-written HTML pages, no domain, nothing deployed. Good bones and real copy, but with the kind of problems that are invisible until you measure: no meta descriptions anywhere, no canonical tags, no structured data, fonts embedded into every single page, and below 900 pixels no navigation at all.
That last one is worth sitting with. Every phone visitor could reach the footer links and nothing else. On most B2B sites more than half of first visits are mobile, so a majority of arrivals were landing on a site they could not move around.
Want the same list for your site? The free 15 point check finds these before you pay anyone. Get the site check ➤
Page weight: 2.43 MB down to 0.95 MB
Both fonts were embedded directly into all fifteen pages as base64. That works, and it costs about 101 KB per page — charged again on every single page, because an embedded font cannot be cached and reused. A visitor reading four pages downloaded the same two fonts four times.
Pulling them out into two real files cut the site's HTML by 61 per cent, from 2.43 MB to 0.95 MB, and the homepage from 179 KB to 77 KB. The fonts are now fetched once and reused everywhere after that.
The finished homepage costs 172 KB across 8 requests, and zero of those requests go to a third party unless you accept analytics.
Accessibility: 120 findings, then none
An automated pass over all pages found 120 issues. The ones that mattered:
- No mobile navigation existed. Built one, with tappable submenus.
- No
<main>landmark and no skip link on any page, so screen-reader users could not jump past the navigation. Both added everywhere. - 251 decorative icons were being announced aloud as meaningless items. Hidden from assistive technology.
- 46 pieces of text under 13px and 160 tap targets under 40px. Now zero and zero, apart from the carousel dots, which stay 10px visually with a 44px invisible hit area.
Every page was then re-checked at ten screen widths from 320px to 1920px: no horizontal scrolling and no overflowing elements at any of them.
Analytics that ask first
Google Analytics sets cookies and sends data to the United States, so under the ePrivacy rules it needs consent before it loads, not after. Most banners fail this: they load the tag immediately and ask afterwards, which makes the banner decorative.
Here the tag does not exist until you press Allow. Not the cookie — the script itself. Verified by recording every network request on a first visit: zero requests to any Google domain before consent. Refusing is exactly as easy as accepting, which the GDPR requires and most banners quietly ignore.
This is what the GDPR line on the rebuild page actually means in practice. See what a rebuild includes ➤
Findability
Nineteen pages, each with a meta description written to length rather than truncated by
Google, a canonical URL, Open Graph tags and structured data — none of which existed
before. URLs carry the keyword each page targets: /services/b2b-seo/ rather than
/seo.html.
The sitemap and robots file are live, and all pages were pushed through IndexNow, which notifies Bing, Yandex, Seznam and Naver the moment something changes instead of waiting to be crawled. DNSSEC is enabled and HTTPS is enforced.
Check every claim yourself
None of this needs trusting. Each line above is verifiable from your own machine in about five minutes.
Page weight and third-party requests
Open developer tools, Network tab, reload this page. Count the requests and check the total transferred. Look for any domain that is not joharcreativ.com before you accept analytics.
Speed
Run this URL through Google PageSpeed Insights. I deliberately publish no speed score here: scores move with the network you measure from, and a number I screenshot on a good connection tells you nothing about yours.
Structured data and tags
View source, or paste the URL into Google's Rich Results Test. The meta description, canonical, Open Graph and JSON-LD are all in the first thirty lines.
The consent gate
Open the Network tab in a private window, filter for "google", and load any page. It stays empty until you press Allow.
What is still unproven
Rankings. This domain was registered on 23 August 2026 and search engines have barely met it. A new domain typically needs three to four months before positions move at all, and six to nine before traffic means anything.
So there is no traffic graph on this page, and there will not be a fabricated one. What goes here instead is the real Search Console record as it accumulates, month by month, including the flat months. If you want to know whether the search work is any good, this page is where you will be able to check — which is a slower promise than a screenshot, and a considerably more honest one.
Want this done to your site?
Send your web address and you get the same audit that produced this list, written, within two working days. Free, and yours to hand to whoever you hire.