Doctorgpeds: a phone-and-desktop teardown
We loaded https://doctorgpeds.com/ 4 times on a simulated iPhone and 2 more on a 1366px desktop, and wrote down what a real visitor would see on each. No login, no insider access, no Harvv pixel needed. Here is what repeated visits already show, sorted by how we know it.
TL;DRWhat jumped out
Of everything we found on this scan, this is the one to start with: Broken internal links. 1 internal link target returned an error (404/410/5xx) or did not respond. Broken links waste crawl budget, frustrate visitors, and leak ranking signal. (Found across a sample of 4 pages from your sitemap, a partial crawl rather than your full site.)
Below: what's already working, every finding ranked by impact and tagged with the screen it affects, the speed numbers on phone and desktop, and a checklist of what to fix first.
00What's already working
Start here so the problems below are in context. These held up across the test loads:
- Speed is good. Google Lighthouse scores this page 90/100 for performance on mobile. Loading is not what is costing you visitors here.
- Light page weight. The page is about 0.2 MB across 10 requests. That keeps it quick on mobile data and cheap to load repeatedly.
- No JavaScript errors on load. Nothing threw a script error across the test loads, so buttons and tracking are not silently breaking mid-session.
- Search basics are in place. Lighthouse scores SEO 100/100. The fundamentals Google looks for are present.
- Accessible to most visitors. Lighthouse accessibility is 100/100, so screen-reader and contrast basics are largely handled.
- Layout holds on phone and desktop. Nothing spilled past the edge at either 390px (phone) or 1366px (desktop), so the structure is responsive.
01Findings, ranked by what hurts conversion most
| Severity | Finding | How we know |
|---|---|---|
| High | Broken internal linksBothSEOConversion 1 internal link target returned an error (404/410/5xx) or did not respond. Broken links waste crawl budget, frustrate visitors, and leak ranking signal. (Found across a sample of 4 pages from your sitemap, a partial crawl rather than your full site.) The exact examples we found:
paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| High | Add quotations so AI engines cite this pageBothAI SearchSEO Generative engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews) lift sourced, attributed quotes almost verbatim, and quotations are the single strongest citation lever (studies measure roughly +41%). Add 1-2 attributed expert quotes or blockquotes to the pages below. (Found across a sample of 4 pages from your sitemap, a partial crawl rather than your full site.) paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Medium | Tiny buttons are hard to tap on mobileMobileAccessibility (WCAG)Conversion 6 of 19 tappable items on this page (32%) measure under 24 pixels on their shorter side — below the WCAG minimum, and well under the 44 pixels Apple and Google recommend for reliable tapping, and the same ones came up small on every test load. When visitors can't hit what they expect to, they get frustrated and many of them leave instead of trying again. The exact elements we found: paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Medium | AI search crawlers are blockedBothSEO Your robots.txt blocks 8 AI crawlers (gptbot, google-extended, claudebot, ccbot, bytespider, applebot-extended, amazonbot, meta-externalagent). Those engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Claude) cannot read your site, so your content cannot be cited or shown in AI search. The exact examples we found:
paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Low | Security headers are missing or weakBothSecurity The server response is missing browser-hardening headers that protect visitors and are a standard security and agency checklist item. Missing or weak here: HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security, which forces HTTPS on return visits). These are set at the server, CDN, or host level (most platforms expose them in settings or a config file) and do not change how the site looks or performs. paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Low | No third-party analytics tag detectedBothTracking No Google Analytics, GA4, or other third-party analytics tag was found in the page. If you rely only on platform or server-side analytics that is fine; but if not, a third-party tag is the baseline way to see how many visitors arrive, where they come from, and what converts. First-party or server-side analytics are not detectable from the outside, so this may already be handled. paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Low | No email capture or newsletter detectedBothConversion No email-marketing tag (Klaviyo, Mailchimp, etc.) was found. If capturing visitors is relevant to this site, an email signup builds an owned audience you keep regardless of ad costs. Not every site needs one. paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Low | No Organization or WebSite schemaBothSEO No site-wide Organization or WebSite structured data found on any crawled page. This is the schema that tells Google and AI engines who you are (name, logo, social profiles) for the knowledge panel and brand recognition in AI answers. (Found across a sample of 4 pages from your sitemap, a partial crawl rather than your full site.) paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT | |
| Low | No HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security)BothSEO No Strict-Transport-Security header on any crawled page. HSTS forces browsers to always use https for your domain, preventing protocol-downgrade and cookie-hijacking attacks. Add it to your server or CDN response headers. (Found across a sample of 4 pages from your sitemap, a partial crawl rather than your full site.) paste into Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT |
Accessibility findings are automated checks against Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and 2.2. They flag potential barriers and legal risk, not a certification or a determination of compliance with the ADA, Section 508, or EN 301 549. Automated testing catches only a subset of issues; a full conformance review needs manual and assistive-technology testing by a qualified reviewer.
"How we know": unlabeled = a deterministic fact, identical on every load (e.g. element sizes). Most findings are this kind, so we only mark the exceptions: median across loads = a noisy lab metric, reported as a median. real-user field data = Google CrUX, actual Chrome visitors.
Structural and AI-search checks crawl up to 8 pages from your sitemap (a sample, not your full site). "Broken" means a link returned 404, 410, or 5xx, or did not respond; access-controlled pages (401, 403) are not counted.
02Performance: phone, desktop, and real visitors
| Metric | Mobile | Desktop | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTFB (lab median) | 36 ms | 33 ms | Lab |
| FCP (lab median) | 184 ms | 190 ms | Lab |
| LCP (lab median) | 188 ms | 190 ms | Good |
| Page weight (median) | 0.2 MB | 0.2 MB | OK |
Google Lighthouse (lab): Performance 90 mobile / 100 desktop, SEO 100, Accessibility 100, Best Practices 100.
Lab numbers are from a headless mobile browser on an unthrottled connection: treat them as a floor, not a typical experience. Add a Google API key to light up real-user field data (CrUX) and Lighthouse scores.
03Tiny buttons are hard to tap on mobile
6 of 19 tappable items on this page come in below 44×44 pixels, the size Apple and Google both recommend for reliable tapping on a phone. The same ones came up small on every one of the 4 test loads, so this is the page itself, not a fluke.
The buttons measuring below the minimum on this scan:
- a 87x20 "Contact us"
- a 61x24 "Reviews"
- a 196x24 "Notice of Privacy Practices"
- a 103x24 "Privacy Policy"
- a 110x24 "559-320-6528"
- a 170x24 "drg@doctorgpeds.com"
The fix is CSS-only on most sites: add padding around the icon (don't just change the icon size) so the actual tap area is at least 44×44 pixels. No redesign, no new assets.
04Technical SEO & structured data
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Title | Dr. G Pediatrics | Fresno Pediatrician & Children's Clinic (58 chars) |
| Meta description | 205 chars |
| H1 | 1 on page |
| Canonical | Present |
| Structured data (JSON-LD) | MedicalClinic |
| Open Graph | Title + image |
05The fix checklist
Everything to fix, priority first, each tagged with the screen it affects and a rough effort. Work top to bottom.
- Broken internal linksBothVaries
- Add quotations so AI engines cite this pageBothVaries
- Tiny buttons are hard to tap on mobileMobileCSS only
- AI search crawlers are blockedBothVaries
- Security headers are missing or weakBothVaries
- No third-party analytics tag detectedBothDev afternoon
- No email capture or newsletter detectedBothVaries
- No Organization or WebSite schemaBothVaries
- No HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security)BothVaries
Effort is a rough read from the outside: "CSS only" means no new assets or backend work, "1 line" means a single tag, "Dev afternoon" means a developer needs to touch tracking or scripts.
06What this report cannot tell you
Everything above is from the outside, looking at the page on a simulated phone and desktop. The questions that actually decide revenue need real visitors. Install the Harvv pixel (one script tag, 16 KB, zero personal data, no engineering project) and within about 72 hours you'd know which buttons real customers tapped and missed, how often Google Analytics is missing visits, and exactly where mobile shoppers stalled and left. This report shows you where to look. The pixel shows you how often it happens, and to whom.
Drop the Harvv pixel on doctorgpeds.com and we turn this one-off scan into ongoing measured behavior: which taps miss, where sessions stall, and the real drop rates. Free to start, no card needed.
Add the pixel free07How we did this, and what it can't prove
- 4 mobile + 2 desktop loads of one URL from headless Chrome (iPhone viewport at 390px, desktop at 1366px), July 8, 2026. Enough loads to separate real defects from random noise, not a full-site crawl.
- Lab numbers, not real-user numbers (no field data was available for this run). Real devices on real networks run slower.
- Friction is inferred, not counted. We can prove a button is small. We can't, from the outside, count how often it causes a missed tap. That requires the pixel on a live page.
About Harvv, the source of this teardown
Harvv is a behavioral UX analytics platform (harvv.com). A lightweight JavaScript pixel captures how real visitors behave on a site (dead clicks, rage clicks, scroll depth, Core Web Vitals, JavaScript errors, and 50+ other signals) and the engine turns them into prioritized, plain-English findings. This teardown is the outside-in version of that: the same detectors run against a public page, with no pixel installed.
How to read it. Every finding here is a reproducible, automated measurement, not an opinion: element sizes, contrast ratios, load metrics, and structured-data checks that anyone can re-run against the same URL. The method is stated in full above. Automated testing catches a subset of issues, so this is a starting point, not a certification.
Full disclosure. Harvv makes the pixel that would measure the friction these findings imply, so we have a commercial interest. That is exactly why the findings are kept to things a reader can verify independently, and why nothing here is inflated: an unreproducible claim would undermine the tool it is meant to demonstrate.
Prepared by Harvv (harvv.com), a behavioral UX analytics platform. Last updated July 8, 2026.