Ghost Website Analysis

“Your accessibility score of 92 is solid, but users won't care when they're waiting 27 seconds for the page to load.”

Good news: contrast ratios, keyboard navigation, and ARIA labels are mostly working (92/100). Bad news: users bounce before they experience any of it. The audit shows render-blocking requests and forced reflows that kill perceived performance. Missing favicon breaks brand consistency. Your CTA exists but competes in a slow, bloated page experience. Fix the performance issues first—good UX is useless when it takes half a minute to arrive.

“Perfect SEO score—pity your site takes 26.7 seconds to show users why they should care.”

Your metadata is pristine, OG tags are complete, internal linking is thoughtful (90 links showing good architecture), and your word count is healthy. PageSpeed gave you a 100 in SEO best practices. But here's the cruel joke: Core Web Vitals are tanking. Your LCP is 26.7 seconds—that's a user fury generator. Google's algorithm increasingly punishes slow experiences, so your perfect SEO score is getting undermined by your catastrophic performance numbers.

“Your messaging is sharp but your H1 is playing hide-and-seek and losing.”

You have zero H1 tags on your homepage. Zero. It's like walking into a building with no main entrance—technically you can get in through the loading dock, but why would you? Your copy itself is excellent (clear value props, social proof with named publications), but the structural HTML is broken. Add a proper H1 and watch your SEO get even spicier than it already is.

“17 images without alt text is like having 17 invisible guests at your dinner party.”

Your visual hierarchy is clean and modern, but you're committing accessibility sins. 17 images out of 73 have no alt text—that's a 23% failure rate on something literally every designer learns in week one. Your missing favicon is the cherry on top (yes, it matters for brand consistency). The layout itself is solid, but accessibility debt will eventually come due.

“PageSpeed gave you 65/100 while internally screaming about render-blocking requests and unused JavaScript.”

Your LCP (26.7s) is grotesque—users will assume the site is broken before content appears. Time to Interactive scored 0/100. You're serving 73 images and likely not optimizing delivery (0/100 audit). External scripts (6 of them) are probably render-blocking, and you've got unused CSS and JavaScript weighing you down like anchors. Start with image optimization (WebP with fallbacks), defer non-critical JavaScript, and split that CSS bloat. This is the difference between a portfolio site and a professional platform.