--- title: "Fix an AI-generated website: UX, SEO, and technical checks" description: "A practical approach to fixing an AI-generated website: test the customer journey, verify the content, and prioritise UX, SEO, and technical repairs." url: https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/fix-ai-generated-website/ lang: en-GB alternates: en: https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/fix-ai-generated-website/ fr: https://fkweb.dev/fr/articles/corriger-site-genere-ia/ nl: https://fkweb.dev/nl/inzichten/ai-website-herstellen/ de: https://fkweb.dev/de/wissen/ki-website-reparieren/ x-default: https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/fix-ai-generated-website/ --- 1. [Home](https://fkweb.dev/en/) 2. [Insights](https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/) 3. How to fix an AI-generated website before investing in a rebuild # How to fix an AI-generated website before investing in a rebuild A practical approach to fixing an AI-generated website: test the customer journey, verify the content, and prioritise UX, SEO, and technical repairs. By [Fernando Kylas](https://fkweb.dev/en/about/)23 July 20268 min read An AI-generated website needs the same scrutiny as any business website. Can a customer understand the offer and complete the intended task? Can the business keep the information accurate and the system dependable? A convincing preview answers neither question on its own. The visible result needs to be examined alongside the implementation and the working arrangements behind it. If you want to fix an AI-generated website, I would start with the existing journey and the evidence of what is going wrong. That helps distinguish a focused repair from a structural problem. It also protects useful work from being discarded simply because the first version was made with an unfamiliar tool. The creation method is context, not a diagnosis. An AI website builder may have supplied a suitable foundation or a prototype with unresolved limits. The decision should follow the actual condition of the site, the requirements it must meet, and the cost of supporting it after the repair. ## Establish what the website must actually do Describe the main task in concrete terms. A consultancy might need to help a prospect assess a service before making an enquiry. A booking business may need confirmed availability and a completed reservation. Those journeys demand different information and operational behaviour. A generic instruction to improve the website leaves that distinction unresolved. Choose a realistic entry point and work through the complete route. Someone may arrive on an article rather than the homepage. Identify what they need to understand before continuing and what the business needs from the resulting action. A successful page view is not the same as a useful completed task. Record where the task becomes unclear, stops, or produces the wrong outcome. Separate your observation from its possible cause. If a button opens an unexpected destination, document the destination before deciding whether the problem lies in copy, configuration, or code. This gives the investigation something reproducible to examine. My article on [a focused DIY website audit](https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/diy-website-audit/) explains how to collect that initial evidence. The point is to identify a meaningful problem, not generate a list of changes based entirely on personal visual preference. A repair should have a reason connected to the site’s work. ## Verify the content against the real business Read generated copy against information the business can confirm. Check services, locations, delivery promises, team descriptions, and contact details. Do not retain invented testimonials, qualifications, statistics, or project examples because they make the page look complete. A confident tone does not establish a factual basis. Look beyond visible paragraphs. A title, image caption, or short description may contain a claim the main page does not support. An image may also imply a team, facility, or completed project that does not exist. The review needs to cover what the visitor is likely to understand from the presentation. Then identify missing decision information. A broad promise of an excellent experience does not explain scope, suitability, exclusions, or what follows an enquiry. Replace vague assurance with the details necessary for an informed choice. You may need a clearer paragraph rather than another section or a more elaborate visual effect. For a fictional maintenance provider, updates and monitoring do not automatically include emergency response outside working hours. The site should explain the actual boundary. Otherwise, an attractive promise of continuous protection can create an expectation the business is not organised to meet, even if the page contains no obvious technical fault. ## Test workflows that can fail beyond the screen A demonstration may show the normal state while leaving important failures unexamined. For a permitted enquiry test, coordinate with the recipient and identify the submission clearly. Check that the intended person receives the relevant information, not merely that the website displays a success message. The operational result belongs in the test. Inspect required fields, useful error feedback, confirmation, and the next step. Consider whether the visitor knows what happened when an action fails or is interrupted. Do not create live purchases or bookings as casual experiments. Arrange appropriate testing with the responsible team where a transaction has real consequences. Review the route on relevant smaller screens with realistic content. Use a keyboard, inspect focus, and check whether menus or dialogues can be opened and closed appropriately. A balanced desktop screenshot can hide a difficult interaction or an important condition separated from its action on mobile. W3C’s [accessibility evaluation guidance](https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/) explains that tools alone cannot determine accessibility. Treat automated findings as investigation aids, not certification. Record the method, scope, and remaining checks. A small repair can be worthwhile without being presented as a complete accessibility assessment of the whole website. ## Separate search access from the purpose of the page First ask whether an important page is available to the intended discovery systems. Then ask whether its content fulfils a distinct reader need. A technically available page can still be vague, duplicative, or irrelevant to the audience. Conversely, useful information needs an implementation that allows the intended access. Have titles, headings, internal links, indexing directives, and canonical arrangements reviewed in context. A development preview intentionally excluded from search should not be treated like a public service page. Record the purpose and environment before following a warning. A broad configuration change can affect more than the single URL that prompted it. Google’s [guidance on generative AI content](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content) emphasises accuracy, quality, relevance, and review, including metadata. The practical task is editorial verification, not disguising the drafting method. Assess whether the page gives the reader useful, supportable information rather than assuming its origin determines its value. Avoid creating many similar pages to make the site seem comprehensive. My article on SEO foundations before content volume develops that question. Improve the destination that should answer the need before adding another page whose purpose overlaps. The repair should make the information system clearer, not merely larger. ## Find out whether the implementation can be supported Establish where the source is kept, how the website is built and deployed, and who controls the domain, hosting, and connected accounts. Distinguish a downloadable source export from a documented working system. A replacement provider needs enough information to understand the dependencies and operate the site, not just a folder of files. Check ordinary editing. Can someone update a service or publish an article without regenerating the whole application? Does the editor expose understandable controls? A site that works with its original text may still be unsuitable if routine changes require technical intervention the business cannot maintain or afford. Where necessary, obtain a technical review of concrete concerns: duplicated components, unclear configuration, unused dependencies, or missing failure handling. Explain how each affects reliability or future change. Generated code deserves scrutiny through its behaviour and structure, rather than a general objection to the way it was created. My article on website technical debt explains the continuing obligation. Adding another generated feature to an unclear foundation can make the next repair harder. Before expanding the site, establish who can understand the existing arrangement and what needs correction to keep ordinary operation dependable. ## Prioritise repair by consequence and dependency Group findings around the tasks they affect. A confirmed enquiry failure deserves a different response from a decorative preference. Unclear scope may need content and UX work; broken routing may need technical attention. State what you observed and why it matters instead of relying only on a tool’s severity label. Identify dependencies before estimating work. A form may need a confirmed destination and agreed questions before its layout is revised. A content correction may need the business to approve the offer. Solving those questions early prevents development effort from being spent implementing an assumption that changes afterwards. For every repair, define the expected behaviour and how it will be checked. An enquiry should reach the responsible destination, preserve the visitor’s message, and explain the next step accurately. Those criteria are more actionable than asking someone to make the form professional or improve conversion without evidence. Keep the proposed work proportionate. A focused repair does not need to absorb unrelated animation, a new visual identity, or every possible content improvement. It does need enough surrounding work to function reliably. Explain where the boundary falls and what remains outside it so the business can assess the actual commitment. ## Decide what to retain and when replacement is justified Retain content, assets, components, and working integrations that remain accurate and suitable. Their usefulness does not disappear because another part needs repair. Assess the cost of stabilising the existing site against the cost and disruption of replacing it, including content transfer, connected services, and handover. Replacement may be justified when necessary requirements cannot be met in the platform or the implementation cannot be maintained economically. Explain the evidence for that conclusion. A dislike of the tool, or an attractive new prototype, is not enough to demonstrate that rebuilding will resolve the current problem. My comparison of [custom websites and website builders](https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/custom-website-vs-website-builder/) examines the operating questions. The useful choice concerns the delivered system and continuing responsibilities. A rebuild should answer those questions more clearly than the existing arrangement, rather than move the same uncertainties into a different technology. Document what will be retained, changed, and checked if replacement proceeds. If repair is preferable, document that decision too. Choosing less work can be the stronger professional recommendation when it resolves the relevant problem and leaves a dependable system. The scope should follow evidence, not the appeal of a fresh start. ## Verify the repair and leave a usable record Repeat the affected journey after changes and inspect the actual outcome. Check relevant neighbouring behaviour when a shared component or setting was altered. A successful edit is not sufficient evidence that the problem is resolved. Verification must correspond to the original failure and the accepted criteria. Keep a concise record of findings, decisions, changes, and remaining responsibilities. The next person should understand what was fixed and what still needs attention without reconstructing the project from a series of prompts. Note meaningful limits rather than implying that one repair establishes the quality of every part of the site. The aim is a website the business can trust and maintain. Start with the real task, correct unsupported information, investigate implementation limits, and verify the response. An AI-generated website may need focused attention or substantial replacement. The right recommendation is the one that explains why, preserves what works, and resolves the problem that matters. ## Related services - [UX audit](https://fkweb.dev/en/services/ux-audit/) - [Web development](https://fkweb.dev/en/services/web-development/) [All insights](https://fkweb.dev/en/insights/) Next step ## Have a project in mind? Let us talk it through. Tell me what exists today and what needs to change. I reply within 2 business days, in English or French. [Start a project](https://fkweb.dev/en/contact/)Or email me directly [thatsme@fernandokylas.com](mailto:thatsme@fernandokylas.com)