Budget owners who’ve sat through one too many polished vendor decks want proof, not promises. Google Search Console (GSC) is uniquely positioned to deliver verifiable, exportable evidence: query-level impressions, clicks, position, indexing status, rich results diagnostics, and field data from real users. This list gives you concrete GSC-driven analyses you can present to stakeholders or use to validate vendor claims. Each numbered item explains the foundational data, shows a practical example, gives a short thought experiment to test assumptions, and lists the exact screenshots and exports you should capture to make numbers unambiguous.
Why this list matters
Your stakeholders want numbers tied to actions. GSC gives those numbers in ways that are auditable — you can export, timestamp, and re-check. This isn’t about replacing GA/BigQuery or server logs; it’s about using a Google-owned, search-intent data source to measure what matters early in the funnel. If a vendor promises "SEO lift" or "better rankings," GSC is the primary source to validate or refute that claim.
1. Establish a Baseline with the Performance Report (Queries, Impressions, Clicks, CTR, Position)
Foundational understanding: The Performance report is the most direct place to capture organic visibility and engagement straight from Google’s index. It aggregates clicks, impressions, average position, and CTR by query, page, country, and device. Those are the raw signals you need to validate improvements vendors promise.
Example
Export a 90-day historical CSV for "Queries" and filter to the top 200 queries. You might see Query A: 1,200 impressions, 18 clicks, 1.5% CTR, avg pos 12.6. Save that export and timestamp it. If a vendor claims they will improve performance in 90 days, you’ll be able to show whether Query A’s impressions/clicks/position changed and by how much.
Practical application
Use the baseline to create KPI thresholds: e.g., “Target: +20% clicks on high-converting queries within 90 days with no cannibalization.” When you get vendor reports, map their claimed keyword wins back to the export and show discrepancy or alignment.
Thought experiment
Imagine two vendors: Vendor X increases impressions for non-converting queries while Vendor Y improves average position for high-converting queries. Which vendor should you favor? Use your GSC export to simulate expected clicks change for each scenario and compare to your conversion data before selecting.
Suggested screenshots/exports: Performance > Queries export (CSV), filtered by date range and top queries; screenshot of query table showing CTR and average position.
2. Attribute Page-Level Impact — Compare Page Impressions, Positions, and CTR Pre/Post Changes
Foundational understanding: Page-level metrics isolate where visibility changes are happening. A vendor can claim a “content refresh” moved pages to page 1 — that’s a testable statement. Page-level impressions and position are less noisy than query-level when content is targeted to specific pages.
Example
Before a content upgrade, page /product-x has 10,000 impressions, 230 clicks, avg pos 18, CTR 2.3% over 60 days. After the vendor’s intervention (and allowing an indexing window), export the same metrics. If impressions rise to 16,000 and avg pos moves to 9.8 with clicks at 920, you have quantifiable lift: +60% impressions, +300% clicks, position improvement of ~8 places.
Practical application
Create a "page impact" dashboard from periodic exports. Use this to call out which pages improved and which didn’t. Tie each page to the vendor activity (content update date, server changes, schema added) and demand documentation correlating to the dates in GSC.
Thought experiment
Suppose a vendor reports moving 20 pages to “top 10 positions.” If only 5 pages actually jump into top 10 in your GSC exports, what was delivered and what was promised? Simulate revenue impact by applying historical CTR and conversion rates to the pages that actually improved.
Suggested screenshots/exports: Performance > Pages export showing comparison windows; screenshot of “Compare” mode in Performance for the two date ranges.
3. Use Index Coverage and Indexing Errors as Immediate Proof of Technical Work
Foundational understanding: Vendors often promise “indexing fixes” or “crawl optimization.” GSC’s Coverage report shows which URLs are indexed, blocked, or erroring. It gives concrete counts and the specific error messages Google observed.
Example
Imagine your site has 4,500 valid indexed pages and 1,200 excluded pages due to noindex errors or server 5xx responses. After the vendor claims to have fixed the issue, the Coverage report should show a reduction in excluded errors (e.g., excluded pages drop to 300). That’s a verifiable reduction in problem pages — easily exported and time-stamped.
Practical application
Demand before-and-after screenshots of the Coverage graph and a CSV export of affected URLs with the specific issue. Match the resolved URLs to the vendor’s ticketing system or change log. For each resolved URL, validate that it remains valid in the next 30-day window.
Thought experiment
If a vendor fixes indexing for pages that historically never drove clicks or conversions, is that a win? Use your export to filter for pages with impressions >0 over the last 90 days and prioritize those first. Calculate how many previously excluded, frequently-impressed URLs would add to potential impressions if reindexed.
Suggested screenshots/exports: Coverage > Indexing Issues export; list of resolved URLs with timestamps; change-log evidence (git commit or CMS change) matching the resolution.
4. Validate Changes with URL Inspection and Live Test Results
Foundational understanding: URL Inspection lets you see the live status of a specific URL (last crawl, indexing status, rendered HTML, mobile usability). It’s the closest thing to a “proof-of-fix” button for URL-level technical work.
Example
If a vendor says they fixed a canonical issue for /category/widget, run URL Inspection before and after. The “Indexing” section will change state from “URL is not on Google” to “URL is on Google.” Capture the rendered HTML snapshot to show the canonical tag and structured data are present.
Practical application
Make it a policy: any technical claim should be followed by a URL Inspection for at least five representative URLs. Export the “Request Indexing” job ID and timestamps. This prevents vendors from claiming wide fixes without demonstrable URL checks.
Thought experiment
Suppose a vendor validates 100 URLs with “Request Indexing” but only 3 are actually important for traffic. How valuable was that work? Prioritize URL Inspections on pages that drive impressions and conversions — calculate potential traffic recovery if those pages are indexed.
Suggested screenshots/exports: URL Inspection before/after screenshots; rendered HTML snapshot showing changes; “Request Indexing” job confirmation.
5. Tie Core Web Vitals and Mobile Usability Fixes to Clicks and Impressions
Foundational understanding: Core Web Vitals and mobile usability are field signals in GSC and affect UX-based rankings and CTR. GSC surfaces real-user field data (FID, LCP, CLS) at the page group level. These are measurable and auditable.
Example
After a vendor optimizes images and critical CSS, the Core Web Vitals report might show the percentage of URLs with “Good” LCP rising from 42% to 78% in the following month. Cross-reference pages that moved into the “Good” bucket with performance changes in the Performance report to validate whether improved LCP correlated with improved impressions or CTR.
Practical application
Request a matrix: pages fixed vs. before/after CWV state vs. change in impressions/clicks. If CWV improvements don’t coincide with visibility gains, demand an explanation — sometimes CWV affects CTR more than position, and sometimes it’s a lagged effect.
Thought experiment
Imagine you improve LCP on a high-volume product page but impressions don’t budge. Could better perceived performance increase CTR without changing position? Simulate the impact: apply a conservative CTR uplift (2–5%) to average search impressions and estimate incremental clicks and conversions.
Suggested screenshots/exports: Core Web Vitals report before/after; list of URLs that migrated buckets; cross-tab export of those URLs’ Performance metrics.
6. Measure Rich Results and Search Appearance Changes (Schema, AMP, Sitelinks)
Foundational understanding: Schema and other enhancements produce measurable changes in the Search Appearance filters in GSC. These changes are often quick wins with visible CTR effects — and they show up as distinct rows in the Performance report.
Example
If a vendor implements FAQ schema on 50 key pages, filter Performance by “Search appearance” to see whether results are showing the FAQ rich snippet and whether CTR on those pages increased. You might see 50 pages collectively go from 4,500 impressions and 90 clicks to 6,200 impressions and 320 clicks after the change — an undeniable CTR and click gain attributable to the schema.
Practical application
Ask for a list of pages where schema was added and a screenshot of the Rich Results test for representative pages. Then export Performance filtered by “Search Appearance” to show the effect. If a vendor claims rich results but GSC shows no change in the “Search Appearance” count, request remediation.
Thought experiment
Suppose schema increases CTR but pushes your listing into a different SERP layout that reduces overall impressions (for example, replacing a featured snippet). Model whether the net effect is positive by comparing net clicks before and after and estimating conversion lift per click.
Suggested screenshots/exports: Rich results test screenshots, Performance > Search appearance export, list of pages with schema added and timestamps.
7. Prove Geo and Device Targeting with Country and Device Filters
Foundational understanding: Vendors promise mobile-first strategies or specific geo-targeting. GSC lets you segment Performance by country and device, producing direct evidence of whether those efforts improved the targeted audience metrics.
Example
If a vendor claims a mobile UX overhaul will increase mobile clicks, filter Performance to “Mobile” and compare two windows. You might find mobile impressions up from 80,000 to 110,000 and clicks from 2,400 to 4,500, while desktop stays flat. That validates targeted mobile gains. Conversely, if global clicks rise but the targeted country shows no change, the claim fails.
Practical application
Require vendors to specify the target device and country in their SOW. After changes, export the Device and Country segmented Performance reports and validate changes only in the specified segments. If a claim is “global uplift,” expect global metrics to change — not only one market.
Thought experiment
Imagine you optimize for Country A and see clicks rise in Country B instead. What does that say about keyword intent and where demand exists? Use the data to reassign priorities — sometimes vendor “wins” reveal new opportunities rather than failures.
Suggested screenshots/exports: Performance > Countries and Devices exports, before/after comparisons, list of targeted queries and their geographic sources.
8. Build a Query-to-Conversion Pipeline by Combining GSC with Conversion Data
Foundational understanding: GSC documents pre-click intent, while GA/GA4 or CRM systems capture post-click conversions. The most persuasive proof ties the two: which queries and pages drove conversions, and how that changed after vendor work.
Example
Export top converting landing pages from GA4 for the baseline period and then pull GSC query and page metrics for the same pages. Suppose page /pricing had 400 organic sessions and 32 conversions (8% CVR) baseline. After SEO work, GSC shows page impressions +45% and GA4 sessions +60% with 68 conversions. You can attribute the lifted organic sessions (validated by GSC impressions) to the vendor’s search-driven work and quantify incremental conversions.
Practical application
Create a crosswalk spreadsheet: landing page | GSC impressions pre/post | GSC clicks pre/post | GA sessions pre/post | conversions pre/post. Use conservative attribution rules (e.g., last non-direct click) and clearly document the method. Demand vendor transparency on the attribution model used in their claims.
Thought experiment
What if GSC shows large impression gains but GA shows no increase in sessions? That suggests SERP visibility improved but landing page issues are preventing clicks from turning into sessions (redirects, tracking problems, or UX blockers). Use this discrepancy to prioritize CRO or tagging fixes over more SEO activity.
Suggested screenshots/exports: GSC Performance for the related pages/queries; GA4 landing page conversions export; a table correlating both data sources with conversion attribution notes.
Summary — Key Takeaways and Immediate Next Steps
Google Search Console is the audit trail for search-driven claims. Use it to 1) establish baseline query and page metrics, 2) validate technical fixes via Coverage and URL Inspection, 3) measure UX changes through Core Web Vitals and mobile reports, 4) quantify the effect of rich results, 5) prove geo/device-targeted work, and 6) tie search visibility to conversions by combining GSC with GA/CRM ai conversational brand monitoring data.
Immediate checklist for skeptical budget owners:
- Export a timestamped Performance > Queries and Pages CSV for the last 90 days before any vendor work. Take Coverage report and URL Inspection screenshots for known problem URLs. Require vendors to provide the precise list of changed URLs, change timestamps, and the GSC artifacts (URL Inspection, Coverage, Rich Results tests). Mandate crosswalk tables that link GSC changes to GA/CRM conversions and show attribution methodology. Preserve all reports and exports in a shared folder to create an auditable timeline.
Final thought: if a vendor’s deck promises “SEO lift” without offering to show the actual GSC exports and URL-level evidence, treat that as a red flag. Numbers in Google Search Console are not a magic trick — they’re your proof. Ask for them, validate them, and let the data, not the slides, drive the decision.
Document What to capture Why it matters Performance export (Queries/Pages) CSV for baseline and post-change windows Shows measurable visibility and engagement differences Coverage report Screenshots + export of affected URLs Validates technical fixes and reindexing URL Inspection Before/After rendered HTML and indexing status Proves the specific URL-level fixes were applied Core Web Vitals List of migrated URLs and field metric changes Shows real-user UX improvements that affect CTR and ranking