Case · technical management taken over

Taking over a website is not a chore. It is an inventory.

We took over the technical management of the website of a body-oriented practice in the Netherlands. WordPress with a paid theme, 49 pages, one person behind the practice. Not a project for more enquiries, but an honest question: what is actually there, and which parts of it are broken? This is what we found, what we did, and what we cannot show here.

Versie 1.0 · gepubliceerd 20 september 2026 · laatst herzien 20 september 2026 door Mark Ramos

Period: Handover completed 30 July 2026, maintenance from 18 August 2026
What it is: Technical management and maintenance of an existing site, including transfer of licences and backups
What it is not: No proof that marketing works. We make no claim about that here
Measurement date of this case: 20 September 2026

Case · technical management taken over

What we found

None of this was visible from the front page. These are things that only surface when you look in the backend, follow the links and request the site with different eyes.

The keys did not belong to the practice

The licences for the theme, the caching and the cookie choice were in the name of the previous manager. The backup was also stored in that party's storage. The site belonged to the practice, the access to it did not.

Two security layers were switched off

A firewall had been disabled and a security plugin was missing. The status the plugin itself reports stood at 35 percent.

32 footer links took a detour

They were missing a trailing slash. Every click on one of those links produced a redirect first, before the visitor arrived. Invisible to whoever clicks, measurable for whoever counts.

The form turned people away

The name field was set to letters only. A name with a hyphen, an apostrophe or a space was rejected. The phone number was required while it was meant to be optional.

The menu could not be used with a keyboard

The main menu button received no focus and did not close on Escape. Visible focus on links and buttons was also missing on parts of the site. Someone who does not work with a mouse got no further than the front page.

Several tracking systems were active

More than one system followed the same site. As a result, visitor figures were hard to reduce to a single number.

Pages appeared to be missing

Google supposedly did not know all pages. Checking Google's own index overview showed all 49 pages indexed. The difference sat in delayed reporting, not in the site.

A layer below the site turned AI crawlers away

The site's robots.txt allows every program. Still, every request with GPTBot in the user-agent gets a 429 back: too many requests. A regular browser, an invented bot name and two other AI crawlers get a 200. We measured this on 20 September 2026 in two consecutive rounds. Which layer causes it is not yet clear. The site itself is not, because it allows everything.

Case · technical management taken over

What we did

Three phases, in this order. First know what is there, then repair what is broken, then look whether anything changes.

May to July 2026

Recording what is there

A first conversation about the practice and the site, then a step-by-step plan for taking over management, stating what we arrange and what the practice does itself.
A quote with what we take over, what we do not promise and which costs remain with third parties.
Backup moved to our own storage, licences mapped, permissions and logins reviewed and recorded in a handover report dated 30 July 2026.

August 2026

Repairing what is broken

Security plugin reinstalled and firewall configured, first in learning mode so nothing was blocked unintentionally.
32 footer links corrected, front page images optimised and the e-mail address protected against harvesting bots.
Main menu, contact form and focus visibility adjusted so keyboard operation works.
Conversion measurement set up: form submissions are counted and confirmed with a real test.

August to September 2026

Measuring what changes

Availability continuously followed with checks every five minutes.
Speed measured weekly, with server response time identified as the main factor.
Index status checked via Google's own overview and the site run through our own audit rubric twice, with measurement dates 12 July and 19 August 2026.

Case · technical management taken over

What came out of it

49 out of 49

pages indexed

Checked via Google's own index overview on 17 August 2026. Nothing was missing, even though the site's own dashboard suggested otherwise.

unnecessary redirects removed

The footer links now point directly. Whoever clicks arrives sooner, without an extra step.

35 to 64 percent

firewall status

After reinstalling the security plugin. The road to 100 percent has not been travelled yet and we say so.

100 percent

availability in 30 days

Checks every five minutes, no downtime. This says the site was reachable. It says nothing about whether anyone found it.

form that counts

Submissions have been counted since mid-August. The series is still short, so there is no trend next to it.

keyboard

menu and form

The main menu opens and closes without a mouse, and focus is visible on the parts we work through.

Case · technical management taken over

What we cannot show here

This is the part of a case that usually falls away. It is also the part that makes the other figures credible.

More enquiries: The measurement of form submissions has been running for less than a month and there is no comparison with the period before. We do not give a number for it.
Higher positions: No position series was kept for this site in this period. Without a series there is no movement to show.
Mentions by AI assistants: We measure nothing on that for this site, so we make no statement about it.
Revenue: Those figures belong to the practice and stay there.
An end score for the site: We measure sites with a rubric. That rubric was tightened between July and August, among other things with a check on AI access and a different weighting. Two measurements of the same site on the same day gave 67 and 62 as well. A jump from 42 to 67 would suggest a comparison that does not exist.

Case · technical management taken over

Three questions this case opens

The case is about one site. The questions below you can ask your own practice tonight.

Are you sure the keys to your site belong to you?

Licences, backups and accounts can sit with a previous maker. Then the site is yours and its management is not.

How we measure this: Look up who pays for the licences, where the backup physically sits and whether you can log in to hosting and domain yourself.

Can someone with a hyphen in their name fill in your form?

Small barriers only become visible when you look for them. A name field that allows letters only turns away exactly the people you are looking for.

How we measure this: Fill in your own form with a name containing a hyphen or an apostrophe, and leave the phone number empty.

Is your site turned away somewhere before anyone sees it?

A robots.txt that allows everything does not mean every crawler gets in. Sometimes a layer below filters on user-agent.

How we measure this: Request your site with the user-agent of an AI crawler and see which status code comes back. A 429 or 403 is not indexing, it is a rejection.

Case · technical management taken over

How we measure this

What lies underneath

A monthly report stating per item what was done and what is still open, dated 17 August 2026. A handover report dated 30 July 2026. Two site audits with measurement dates 12 July and 19 August 2026.

What we tested ourselves

On 20 September 2026 we requested the site in two rounds with six different user-agents. A browser, an invented bot name, PerplexityBot and ClaudeBot each time received a 200. Every variant with GPTBot in the name each time received a 429.

What we do not share

The name of the practice, the domain and the person behind it. Whoever was involved will recognise this case. For everyone else it remains a situation with figures.

What this is good for

This case is not proof that something works. It is an example of how we look: first record what is there, then repair what is broken, then measure what changes. If you want to know where your practice is currently leaving opportunities, that is a different questionnaire.

Take the Practice Scan

Version and origin of this case

Versie: 1.0
Laatst herzien: 20 september 2026
Herzien door: Mark Ramos

Eerste casus op de site: overname van technisch beheer van een bestaande site. Alleen gemeten feiten, anoniem gehouden, met een expliciete lijst van wat we niet kunnen laten zien en een methodeblok met peildata.

Citeren: Overnemen mag, met vermelding van InnerBloom, de peildatum en het aantal gemeten domeinen.