Find and Fix Heading Structure Problems
Use LLMIC to review heading structure, inspect missing labels and skipped levels, and create clear, evidence-based fixes for your website.
A heading should help readers understand what comes next. The heading audit helps you find structures that deserve review, then inspect the surrounding page before changing anything. Start with clear problems on important pages instead of treating every repeated heading as an automatic error.
What this guide helps you do
A clear heading hierarchy helps readers scan a page and helps teams understand its structure. Learn how LLMIC finds missing names, level jumps, repeated patterns and pages that require a human review rather than an automatic rewrite.
Build availability: This guide describes the updated workflow checked against the September 2026 development build. Some controls may not yet be included in the public installer. Check the release notes and your app version before following those steps.
The workflow at a glance
- Load a completed crawl
Use a consistent document layer. - Choose a finding
Start with a specific structural problem. - Inspect the heading tree
Read its parent, siblings and text. - Fix and recrawl
Confirm the new structure on the same page.
Workflow illustration. These steps explain the process; they are not measured performance results.
Check the crawl coverage first
Open Headings under Content after loading your crawl. Review which pages were analyzed and which were excluded or unavailable. A partial crawl gives partial evidence. Source HTML and the rendered page can expose different headings, so keep the document layer consistent when comparing a before-and-after result.
Start with understandable labels
Inspect headings that have no readable name. Check the element, its text and any available naming evidence before deciding how to fix it. A visually empty heading may be generated by a template or depend on content that was not captured. Resolve missing evidence before asking your developer to remove an element.
Read levels as a structure
An illustrative structure is H1 “Mac audit software”, followed by H2 “Installation” and H3 “System requirements”. A jump from H2 to H4 deserves review because an intermediate level may be missing. Returning from H3 to H2 can simply mean a new section has started. Do not renumber headings mechanically.
Review repetition in context
The same words can appear intentionally in separate navigation areas or sections. Inspect neighboring headings, region and parent relationships. When the same pattern appears across many URLs, it may point to a shared template. Confirm the shared component before making one site-wide edit that could affect unrelated pages.
Give the team a precise change
Record the URL, existing heading, intended wording or level, and the reason. For example: “Make System requirements a subsection of Installation” explains the reader benefit. After publishing, recrawl the affected pages and compare equivalent evidence. A cleaner structure supports navigation and comprehension; it does not guarantee a ranking increase.
Quick reference
| What you see | What to do next |
|---|---|
| Unnamed heading | Check text and naming evidence; provide a meaningful label. |
| Skipped level | Inspect the intended parent before changing the level. |
| Repeated wording | Check region and purpose; repetition can be intentional. |
| Shared pattern | Confirm the template before applying a broad change. |
Your next step
Continue with interpret audit results, organize reviewed fixes, check the finished change. Return to the documentation home for the full workflow. Before sharing an export, check its website, dates and filters, and remove private information. If a control is missing or a result looks wrong, contact support with your app version and a sanitized example.
Frequently asked questions
Use LLMIC to review heading structure, inspect missing labels and skipped levels, and create clear, evidence-based fixes for your website.
Load a completed crawl that includes the pages you need to inspect. Confirm the crawl scope, capture time, rendering choice, and any filters before interpreting the result.
Review the affected URL, measured field, source or rendered evidence, and the rule that raised the item. Inspect nearby pages and templates because one shared component can create the same pattern across many URLs.
Create a task with the affected URL, observed evidence, intended outcome, smallest safe change, owner, and verification method. Keep the measured finding separate from the proposed fix.
Publish the approved change, run a fresh compatible crawl, and compare the new evidence with the saved result. A resolved local finding confirms the implementation changed; search performance requires separate observation over time.
The check cannot guarantee rankings, indexing, traffic, conversions, inclusion in an AI answer, or a future search-engine action. Interpret it with site context, search performance, and editorial judgment.
Save or export the evidence, assign the approved action, and use the related guides linked on the page for the next check. After implementation, repeat the same workflow against a fresh crawl so the result is comparable.