Digital Presence & Market Position Assessment
Mako Technology Solutions
An independent review of Mako's public digital footprint, competitive position, and the regulatory environment its clients operate in, built entirely from public sources.
Overall score
48/100
Across six measures. The low scores sit in the cheapest categories to fix.
Defects found
8
Three are critical. The top three take under ten minutes between them.
Speed vs local rivals
2nd of 7
Measured on the identical test. Mako is not the slow one in this market.
Google reviews
9th of 11
7 reviews against a local median of 21. The largest competitive gap.
Everything we found, on one screen
Twelve findings, ranked by what they cost you. Select a card to jump to the evidence behind it. Filter by when it is worth doing.
Your Google listing points at the old website
Everyone arriving from Maps or local search lands on the 2018 Wix site, which never mentions dentistry.
See the evidence →The Contact page call button dials the wrong number
It displays 941-704-7866 and is wired to a different number used nowhere else in the business.
See the evidence →Four pages show copy belonging to a different service
Disaster Solutions contains no disaster recovery content at all, just the dental boilerplate.
See the evidence →The main button has a typo, 19 times
"GET START TODAY" across eight pages, on the one button a buyer is meant to click.
See the evidence →Your Business Profile category is "Services"
The vaguest option Google offers, and the field that decides which local searches you appear in.
See the evidence →The homepage title names no service
"Mako IT | 941-704-7866" is the strongest on-page search signal there is, and half of it is a phone number.
See the evidence →Four images are 91% of your mobile page
Image weight is nine times the local median. Fixing it would make you the fastest site here bar one.
See the evidence →Four different addresses, one company
Name, address and phone consistency is a primary local ranking factor. Yours disagree across four sources.
See the evidence →A navigation link leads to a dead page
"Backup Management" points at a 404 on two separate pages, including About.
See the evidence →Your reviews are the shortest in the market
31 words against Entech's 83, and zero on the three themes that actually persuade a practice owner.
See the evidence →You explain the HIPAA risk analysis, then do not sell it
It is the exact control regulators cite in settlement after settlement, and your own page already makes the case.
See the recommendation →A niche your competitors cannot copy
The only provider found that is both dental-specialised and physically local, at a perfect 5.0 rating.
See what is working →No findings in that group.
In three sentences: Mako holds a position most managed service providers would want and cannot easily copy, and the website does not sell it. The most consequential defect is not on the website at all, but on the Google listing that points away from it. The speed picture is far better than a single number suggests, and the largest genuine gap is review volume.
02 - Scorecard
Six measures
Scored against our standard rubric for a local service business. Speed and accessibility are anchored to Google Lighthouse 13.4.1, run against the live site on 7 August 2026; the remaining four are scored on the criteria listed in Section 12. Scores are absolute, so they are comparable between businesses and over time. The local peer comparison is in Section 08.
Overall. The distribution matters more than the number: the low scores sit in the categories that are cheapest to fix.
What is already working
- A genuine, defensible niche. Dental and medical, stated plainly, with HIPAA fluency. Most competitors in this market list healthcare as one vertical among five.
- A perfect review rating. 5.0 across every review on the Google Business Profile, with no negative sentiment anywhere to manage.
- Named, credible social proof. Testimonials from identified practices, including a twelve-year client. Named references from real dentists are worth more than any badge.
- The owner is visible. A signed personal promise from Pat on the homepage is unusual for this category and it lands.
- Clean technical hygiene underneath. Every legacy URL correctly redirects to its canonical address, the sitemap and robots file are properly configured, HTTPS is enforced, and the server answers in 50 ms.
03 - Defects
What is costing you contacts today
Each of these was confirmed directly in the live page code, or through the Google Places API, on 7 August 2026, and each was re-checked against the live site on 8 August 2026.
Your Google listing sends visitors to the old website
The website link on Mako's Google Business Profile points to the 2018 Wix site, and not even to its homepage:
This is the page a local-search visitor actually reaches. Generic managed IT, no mention of dentistry or medicine anywhere on it, and a different brand story from the current site.
makotechnologysolutions.com/about · captured 8 August 2026Everyone who finds Mako through Google Maps, the local results pack, or a phone search for "IT support near me" and taps Website lands here. The current site, the one built around the specialism that wins these clients, is never seen.
This also explains why the old domain outranks the new one for the company name. Google treats the Business Profile link as a strong signal of which site is authoritative, and Mako is pointing it at the site it has moved away from.
The Contact page call button dials the wrong number
On makotechnology.com/contact/, the main call link reads "Call Mako (941) 704-7866" but is wired to a different number entirely. A visitor on a phone who taps it, the single most likely action on a contact page, does not reach the number displayed.
1
2
1The link a visitor taps says 941-704-7866. Its actual target is tel:18668067475, an 866 number used nowhere else in the business.
2The published contact address on this page is still @makotechnologysolutions.com, the old domain.
makotechnology.com/contact/ · captured 8 August 2026Four places show copy belonging to a different service
On the Services overview page, the Backup Management block shows the Managed IT text, and the Data and Network Security block shows the Network Services text about eliminating Wi-Fi dead zones. The consulting paragraph appears three times over.
Two dedicated service pages have the same problem more severely. The clearest example is Disaster Solutions:
The heading promises disaster recovery planning. The copy directly beneath it is the About page's dental-niche boilerplate, and nothing anywhere on this page describes backup, continuity or recovery. That same paragraph also carries the "has a increased IT security" error listed below.
makotechnology.com/services/disaster/ · captured 8 August 2026- Disaster Solutions (/services/disaster/) contains no disaster recovery content whatsoever. A visitor researching business continuity, the thing a practice buys after hearing about a ransomware attack, learns nothing.
- Practice Design (/services/new/) closes with a section headed "Start IT Off Right" whose body is the VoIP page's copy about drop-free voice quality and call routing.
This looks like an Elementor template duplicated faster than the copy was written, which means it is recoverable rather than structural.
The main call-to-action button has a typo, 19 times
Across eight pages the primary button reads "GET START TODAY" rather than "GET STARTED TODAY". The correct wording appears elsewhere on the same site 14 times, so the site is inconsistent with itself as well as incorrect.
The button as it appears to a visitor. This is the primary conversion control on the page.
makotechnology.com/services/wifi/ · captured 8 August 2026A typo in body copy is forgivable. A typo on the button a buyer is meant to click, repeated nineteen times, reads as inattention, the single trait a practice owner is most afraid of in an IT vendor.
The 16 other copy errors we found
| Text as published | Should read | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Service Comapny's | Medical Service Companies | /who/ |
| Professional Orginizations | Professional Organizations | /who/ |
| the Southeast's leading providing of IT related services | leading provider | /who/ |
| Savings and Efficency | Efficiency | /services/managed-it/ |
| Some larger companie choose | companies | /services/managed-it/ |
| The Risks of Conveinance | Convenience | /services/wifi/ |
| Stop Worry About Data | Stop Worrying About Data | /services/backup-mgt/ |
| HiPAA compliant | HIPAA compliant | /services/backup-mgt/ |
| a CCTV system that is easy of use | easy to use | /services/cctv/ |
| stable IP infrastructure | IT infrastructure | /services/consulting/ |
| start the processing of getting | the process of | /services/consulting/ |
| Just becuase our client's have a Dr. | because · clients | homepage |
| gives your the best practices | gives you | homepage |
| as your practice grow | grows | homepage |
| a Mako technician in route | en route · and "immediatley" | /makos-difference/ |
| has a increased IT security component | an increased (5 pages) | shared boilerplate |
A link on two pages leads nowhere
The About page and the Disaster Solutions page both link "Backup Management" to /backup-management, which returns a 404. The working address is /services/backup-mgt/. Every other legacy URL on the site redirects correctly, so this is an isolated typo rather than a structural problem.
04 - Speed
Speed, and what the numbers actually mean
If you load your own site right now, it will feel fast. That is not a contradiction of what follows. It is correct, and it is the honest starting point for this section.
0.6 s
Measured, real broadband
4.7 s
Simulated desktop
18.4 s
Simulated slow 4G
4,242 KB
Byte count, mobile
Load time is not one number. It depends on the device, the connection, and whether the visitor has been to the site before. Measured across four conditions on 7 August 2026, the same homepage gives very different answers.
| Condition | Largest content paint | Who this represents |
|---|---|---|
| Desktop, real broadband, empty cache measured directly, twice | 0.6 s | You, and most office visitors. The site is genuinely fast here. |
| Any device, returning visit | near-instant | Anyone who has been before; images come from cache |
| Desktop, Lighthouse simulated | 4.7 s | A modelled average desktop, not a measured one |
| Phone, simulated slow 4G, empty cache | 18.4 s | A first-time visitor on a weak mobile signal |
On a real connection the site loads in well under a second, and scores 97 out of 100. Anyone who tells you this website is slow, without saying under what conditions, is overstating it.
The 18.4 second figure is Google Lighthouse's standard mobile test. It deliberately simulates a constrained connection (1.5 Mbps, 150 ms latency, a processor slowed fourfold) and an empty cache, because that is closer to a prospect standing in a car park on one bar of signal than a developer on fibre. It is a worst case, and it should be read as one.
It still matters, because Google's ranking signals are weighted toward mobile, and because the worst case is what a practice owner gets when they look you up on their phone between patients. The gap between 0.6 seconds and 18.4 seconds is explained by one thing, and that thing is measurable without any simulation at all.
The number that does not depend on conditions
Page weight is not simulated. It is the actual count of bytes shipped, and it is the same on every connection, on every device, for every first-time visitor.
Mako's total page weight is close to the local median. Image weight is where Mako is a genuine outlier: 3,902 KB against a local median of 424 KB, roughly nine times. That is the finding, and it holds regardless of which connection anyone tests on.
Four files account for 3,864 KB of the 4,242 KB mobile page, which is 91 percent of everything a phone downloads. The rest of the site is lean: 26 scripts total only 167 KB, and the server responds in 50 ms. The hosting is not the problem.
The four files responsible
| File | Size served to mobile | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Screenshot-2026-06-01-235311.png | 1,814 KB | An unedited screen capture, published as-is |
| Mako_New_Constructions-768x768.png | 1,060 KB | A 768-pixel image weighing over 1 MB |
| Mako_FAST-1-768x768.png | 495 KB | Near-duplicates of each other |
| Mako_FAST-768x768.png | 495 KB |
Section 08 puts these numbers next to six local competitors measured the same way. The result is more encouraging than this section alone suggests.
05 - Search
The site does not tell Google what Mako does
The homepage title tag is the strongest single on-page signal, and the line that appears as the clickable headline in search results. Mako's is "Mako IT | 941-704-7866". Twenty-two characters, of which half are a phone number. It contains no service, no specialism, and no location. Nobody searches for "Mako IT" unless they already know the company.
Also found
- The Services page has no meta description. The page most likely to be found for service searches leaves Google to invent its own summary.
- Twelve
h1headings on the Services page, and three on the homepage. A page should have one. Elementor generates these silently, so it is a settings fix, not a rewrite. - No LocalBusiness or Organization structured data anywhere. The site publishes generic WebPage and Breadcrumb markup only. For a local service business this is the most valuable piece of missing markup: it feeds address, phone, hours, and service area into Google's local results.
- Twelve of twenty-five homepage images carry no alt text, which costs both image search and screen-reader users.
- No blog, resource centre, or case studies. The site is twenty pages, all static. Section 08 covers why this matters more than it sounds.
Two websites are competing for the same name
A second, older Mako site remains live at makotechnologysolutions.com. Built on Wix, copyright 2018, it presents different positioning (generic managed IT, "operating since 1987", no dental or medical focus) and it currently ranks ahead of makotechnology.com in some searches for the company name. It also carries a visible typo in its services heading. As Section 03 sets out, the Google Business Profile is actively sending traffic to it.
The current site's own published email address, info@makotechnologysolutions.com, still points at that older domain, which is presumably why it has been left running.
06 - Local presence
Four addresses, one company
Local search ranking depends heavily on consistency of name, address, and phone across the web. Mako currently publishes four different addresses across four sources.
| Source | Address on record |
|---|---|
| Google Business Profile | 6160 FL-70, Bradenton, FL 34203 |
| makotechnology.com | P.O. Box 110328, Bradenton, FL 34211 |
| Florida Division of Corporations | 1210 Hereford Rd, Ruskin, FL 33570 |
| Yahoo Local / Yellow Pages | 11562 Echo Lake Cir #101, Bradenton, FL 34211 |
The Google Business Profile address is the one that matters most for local ranking, and it is the one the website does not show. A P.O. Box cannot anchor a Business Profile, so the address on the site can never be the one Google uses. The state record sits in Ruskin, in Hillsborough County, roughly forty minutes north of the Bradenton and Lakewood Ranch practices the site is written for.
The Business Profile itself is thin
| Field | Current state | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 5.0 | Perfect. No negative sentiment to manage. |
| Review count | 7 | Thin. See the peer comparison in Section 08. |
| Primary category | "Services" | The weakest category available. Generic beyond usefulness. |
| Business description | Not set | A free field, unused. |
| Opening hours | Set | Correct. |
| Website link | Old Wix site | See Section 03. |
The category is the quiet problem. Mako's primary category is "Services", which tells Google essentially nothing. A practice manager searching "computer support Bradenton" is served businesses whose primary category matches that intent. Under "Services", Mako competes for those searches with one hand tied.
What the reviews say, and what they do not
Across the five review texts Google returns, the themes are consistent and all concern service behaviour: responsiveness in four of five, expertise in three, reliability in two. Two reviewers volunteer that they would use Mako again. This is a genuinely strong sentiment profile and it matches the promise the website makes about response times.
What is almost entirely absent is the specialism. Only one of the five reviews mentions dentistry or medicine at all. Mako's greatest commercial asset, being the dental practice's IT company, is invisible in the place prospective dental clients are most likely to look.
There is also a timing pattern worth knowing: four of the five reviews were posted within three days of each other in June 2026, with the next most recent dating from February 2024. A cluster like that reads as a one-off request to clients rather than an ongoing habit, and Google's local ranking rewards a steady trickle far more than a burst.
Review data retrieved via the Google Places API on 7 August 2026. Google returns a maximum of five review texts per business, so theme analysis covers five of the seven reviews on the profile.
07 - Accessibility
Close to compliant, with five fixable faults
The site scores 88 of 100 on Lighthouse's automated accessibility audit, better than most small business sites, and above four of the six local competitors measured in Section 08. Five categories fail:
| Fault | Count | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Links with no discernible name | 4 | Screen readers announce these as "link", with no destination |
| Insufficient colour contrast | 3 | Text is hard to read for low-vision users and in bright sunlight |
| Invalid ARIA attribute | 1 | aria-role="dialog" is not valid; it should be role="dialog" |
| Headings skip levels | 2 | Breaks keyboard navigation by document structure |
| Images without alt text | 12 | Content invisible to screen readers and image search |
This matters more for Mako than for an average small business. Mako's clients are healthcare providers, and healthcare providers are themselves subject to accessibility expectations under Section 504 and the ADA. A vendor selling compliance expertise is held to the standard it sells. All five items are configuration-level fixes, not redesign.
08 - Competitor benchmark
Measured against six local competitors
Six competing IT providers in the Sarasota and Manatee market were put through the identical Lighthouse mobile test on the same day, under the same simulated conditions. This is the comparison that makes the numbers in Section 04 meaningful.
| Provider | Perf | LCP | Page KB | Image KB | A11y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT Network Solutions Group | 94 | 3.0 s | 491 | 203 | 96 |
| Mako Technology Solutions | 62 | 18.4 s | 4,242 | 3,902 | 88 |
| Four Winds IT | 57 | 13.4 s | 1,300 | 463 | 84 |
| Entech Computer Services | 56 | 13.8 s | 1,742 | 384 | 95 |
| Alliance IT | 53 | 26.2 s | 45,233 | 2,710 | 79 |
| DPC Technology (dental) | 51 | 17.7 s | 7,516 | 72 | 85 |
| TeamLogic IT Sarasota | 20 | 11.3 s | 5,228 | 2,931 | 88 |
| Competitor median | 54 | 13.6 s | 3,485 | 424 | 87 |
Mako's performance score of 62 is above the competitor median of 54, and second-best of the seven sites tested. On accessibility, 88 beats four of the six. Mako is not the slow one in this market. Almost every provider here is slow, and one of them ships a 45 MB homepage.
The single measure where Mako stands apart is image weight, 3,902 KB against a median of 424 KB. That is also the cheapest thing on this list to change, which produces an unusual opportunity: an afternoon of image compression would very likely make makotechnology.com the fastest B2B IT provider website in this market apart from one. In a category where every competitor is slow, that is a real and defensible advantage, and nobody else appears to be paying attention to it.
Where Mako is genuinely behind: review volume
Every provider in this market has an excellent rating. This is not a category where reviews differentiate on quality. They differentiate on volume, because volume is what Google's local ranking weighs and what a cautious practice owner counts.
| Provider | Google reviews | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Entech Computer Services | 208 | 5.0 |
| IT Network Solutions Group | 109 | 4.9 |
| Four Winds IT | 58 | 4.9 |
| Sarasota Networks | 44 | 4.9 |
| itilogy | 22 | 5.0 |
| TeamLogic IT Sarasota | 21 | 4.9 |
| Alliance IT | 17 | 5.0 |
| Newby Technologies | 12 | 5.0 |
| Mako Technology Solutions | 7 | 5.0 |
| Beyond IT Support | 7 | 5.0 |
| TekMate Managed IT | 5 | 4.2 |
Mako sits ninth of eleven. The median local provider has three times Mako's review count, and Entech has thirty times. Given that Mako's rating is perfect and its testimonials are strong, this is a gap created purely by not asking, and it is the single most fixable competitive disadvantage in this document.
What their reviews say, next to yours
Rating tells you nothing in this market, because everybody is at 4.9 or 5.0. What separates these profiles is what the reviews actually describe. We read the review text Google returns for all seven providers and coded each review for the themes it mentions.
Mako's reviews are the shortest in the market, 31 words against Entech's 83. A long review describes a situation; a short one asserts a feeling. "These guys are amazing, exactly what our office needed" is warm and worth having, but it does not tell the next practice owner anything they can act on, and it gives Google almost no text to associate Mako with a service.
Mako scores zero on the three themes that persuade. Not one of Mako's reviews describes a specific problem being solved, a technician taking the time to explain something, or a working relationship over time. Entech's reviews hit all three, repeatedly. That is not because Entech is better at the work. It is because their reviews tell stories and Mako's give verdicts.
Nobody in this market owns security. Across every review read from seven providers, security, backup and compliance are mentioned twice, both on one small competitor's profile. For a firm whose entire proposition is HIPAA-grade IT for healthcare practices, this is unclaimed and highly defensible ground, and the reviews that would claim it are the easiest kind to solicit, because Mako's clients already experience it.
The full theme-by-theme comparison
| Theme mentioned | Entech | Four Winds | TeamLogic | Newby | Mako |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responsiveness | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Knowledge / expertise | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| A specific problem solved | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Patience / explaining clearly | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Personal relationship | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trust / honesty | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Value / pricing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Security / backup | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Healthcare or dental | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Average review length | 83 words | 56 | 48 | 67 | 31 words |
Who these competitors actually are
Entech is the most significant competitor in Mako's geography. Twenty-eight years old, offices in Sarasota, Bradenton, Tampa, Fort Myers, Naples, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. On the 2026 MSP 501 list, and in July 2026 it acquired C2 Computer Services, so it is actively consolidating this corridor. It publishes articles weekly, including comparison guides ranking Florida IT providers. Its weakness is that it sells to healthcare, finance and manufacturing alike, and its content says so.
A second group (Darkhorse Tech, Medix Dental IT, Zenith Dental IT, Pact-One, Ekim IT, Sunset Technologies) serve dental practices exclusively, in some cases nationwide. DPC Technology is closest: dental-focused across Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, on the MSP 501, publishing entry pricing from $600 per month. Their weakness is that they are remote. None can put a technician in a Venice operatory in forty minutes.
Mako is the only provider identified that is both dental-specialised and physically local to Sarasota and Manatee. That is a strong position, and it is not what the website leads with.
It is also invisible where buyers look. The "best dental IT support companies" comparison articles dominate this category's search results, and they are written almost entirely by the MSPs themselves: Pact-One, Medix, Ekim, Cortavo, Ntiva and DPC all publish one. Mako appears in none of them. A practice owner researching options online meets six competitors before encountering Mako.
09 - Industry context
Regulators have converged on one thing
Healthcare has been the most expensive industry for data breaches for fourteen consecutive years, averaging $7.42 million per incident and 279 days to contain. Seventy-six percent of large breaches are now hacking or IT incidents, and ransomware-related breach reports have risen 264 percent since 2018.
Dental practices are squarely in scope, not adjacent to it. The federal breach portal for 2026 lists Pecan Tree Dental (13,300 patients), Bridle Trails Family Dentistry (20,976), 360 Dental (11,273), Verber Dental Group (8,598), Bronsky Orthodontics (3,183) and Cure Dental (878). These are ordinary practices, not hospital systems.
The important shift is what regulators do afterwards. Since late 2024, the HHS Office for Civil Rights has run a Risk Analysis Initiative, and across settlement after settlement the violation cited is the same one: failure to conduct an accurate and thorough security risk analysis, required under 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A).
| Recent settlement | Amount | Violation cited |
|---|---|---|
| Assured Imaging | $375,000 | Risk analysis never conducted |
| Regional Women's Health Group | $320,000 | Risk analysis failure |
| Consociate Health | $225,000 | Risk analysis failure |
| Comprehensive Neurology, PC (a small practice) | $25,000 | Risk analysis never conducted |
The pattern is unambiguous, and it is the most useful sales fact in this entire document: OCR does not penalise practices for being attacked. It penalises them for having no documented assessment of their own risk. The financial penalty is rarely the largest cost either, because nearly every settlement carries a corrective action plan monitored for two to three years.
10 - Recommendation
The one move we would make first
Strategic recommendation
Productise the HIPAA Security Risk Analysis as a fixed-fee entry offer
Give it a name, a price, and its own page. Sell it as a standalone engagement, not a line item inside a managed services contract.
Every input points the same way. It is the exact control regulators cite in every settlement. Every practice in Mako's service area is required to have a current one, and most do not. It is a defined piece of work with a clear deliverable, which makes it easy to price and easy to buy. It requires no ongoing commitment, which removes the objection that stops a practice switching IT providers. And it ends with a document listing everything wrong with the practice's current setup, the most natural path into a managed services conversation that exists in this industry.
Mako is already most of the way there and does not appear to know it. The Data & Network Security page explains the ONC Security Risk Assessment accurately and in detail: what it requires, why practices are obligated to complete it, what happens if they do not. That page makes the case for the product and then does not sell it. There is no name, no price, no scope, and no way to buy. A visitor finishes it persuaded that they need an SRA and with no way to get one from Mako.
Right now Mako's site sells managed IT, backup, VoIP, cameras and Wi-Fi. The one thing its buyers are actually being fined for not having is described on the site as a regulatory obligation rather than offered as a service.
11 - Actions
What to do, in order
| Action | When | Effort | Why it ranks here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repoint the Google Business Profile at makotechnology.com | Today | 1 min | Every local-search visitor currently lands on the 2018 site |
| Fix the Contact page call link | Today | 2 min | It is actively losing phone calls |
| Change the Business Profile primary category | Today | 5 min | "Services" tells Google nothing; blocks local-pack ranking |
| Correct "GET START TODAY" on 8 pages | Today | 20 min | 19 instances on the button buyers click |
| Start asking every client for a Google review | This week | Ongoing | Largest competitive gap; median local provider has 3x more |
| Compress the four large images | This week | 2-3 hrs | Would make the site the fastest in this market bar one |
| Write the four wrong service descriptions | This week | 4-5 hrs | Disaster Recovery first, since it has no content at all |
| Rewrite the homepage title tag | This week | 15 min | Strongest single on-page search signal, currently wasted |
| Proofread pass across all 20 pages | This month | 1 hr | 16 further errors listed in Section 03 |
| Repair the Backup Management 404 on both pages | This month | 5 min | Broken path on a primary navigation page |
| Add LocalBusiness structured data | This month | 1-2 hrs | Feeds Google's local results directly |
| Reconcile the four addresses everywhere | This month | 4-6 hrs | Consistency is a primary local ranking factor |
| Retire the 2018 Wix site, keep the domain | This month | 1 hr | Stops two brand stories competing for the same searches |
| Clear the five accessibility faults | This month | 2-3 hrs | A compliance vendor is held to the standard it sells |
| Launch the Security Risk Analysis offer | This quarter | Larger | The revenue move; everything above is maintenance by comparison |
| Build a "Dental IT in Sarasota & Manatee" page | This quarter | Larger | Competes for the searches the listicles currently own |
12 - Method
How this was produced
Every finding was taken from a public source and verified against that source directly on 7 August 2026, then re-checked against the live site on 8 August 2026. Where a third-party record conflicted with a primary one, the primary record was used and the conflict is noted in the text.
What we measured and what we consulted
Measured
- Google Lighthouse 13.4.1, mobile and desktop, run against the live site
- The same Lighthouse mobile test run against six competing local providers, same day, same conditions
- Page code inspected directly in-browser for links, headings, metadata and structured data
- Full-text sweep of all 20 pages for copy defects, with every count verified case-sensitively
- HTTP status and redirect behaviour checked across 34 URL paths
- Sitemap and robots.txt retrieved and parsed
Consulted
- Google Places API for Business Profile fields, ratings, categories and review text, for Mako and six local competitors, coded against a fixed ten-theme scheme
- Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (primary record)
- HHS Office for Civil Rights breach portal and settlement announcements
- Published competitor websites, Clutch profiles, and industry comparison guides
- Business directory listings across four platforms
On the load-time figures, and what this report cannot see
Measurement modes
Three different measurement modes appear in this report and they are not interchangeable. Measured figures (0.6 s desktop, performance 97) come from Lighthouse run with real network timings and no artificial cap, repeated twice for consistency. Simulated figures (4.7 s desktop, 18.4 s mobile) come from Lighthouse's default profiles, where observed timings are recalculated against a modelled connection; the mobile profile assumes 1.5 Mbps down, 150 ms round trip, 4x CPU slowdown and an empty cache. Simulated figures are a deliberately conservative first-visit worst case, and the same profile is applied to every competitor in Section 08 so that comparison is like-for-like. Page weight is neither measured under load nor simulated; it is a byte count, identical on every connection. Where this report makes a claim about how the site actually performs, it is anchored to the measured figures; where it compares against competitors, it uses the simulated ones. Field data from real Chrome users was not available for these domains at the time of assessment.
Limits of this pass
Google returns at most five review texts per business through the Places API, so the review theme analysis in Section 06 covers five of Mako's seven reviews, and the competitor comparison in Section 08 is drawn from the five reviews Google returns per business rather than a complete history. It therefore describes the most recent and most prominent reviews. Photo count, Business Profile insight metrics such as search impressions and direction requests, and anything behind the Business Profile login are visible only to the profile owner and are not assessed here.
Scoring
Speed and accessibility scores derive from Lighthouse results. Search visibility, content accuracy, local presence and conversion readiness are scored on a fixed internal rubric covering title and metadata completeness, heading structure, structured data, content depth, published-copy defects, broken links, cross-platform data consistency, Business Profile completeness, and the presence and clarity of conversion paths. Scores are absolute rather than relative to the peer set, so the same rubric applied to any business yields comparable numbers, which is what allows movement to be tracked over time.
This document
The screenshots in Section 03 are unretouched captures of the live site, taken on 8 August 2026; the numbered markers are drawn over them rather than into them, so nothing in the underlying image has been altered. This report is held to the standards it applies: every text colour used here was contrast-checked against its background, and its own images were compressed to the target it recommends in Section 04.