Dental SEO & Website Benchmarks: Roseville, CA
Live figures from 109 indexable audited Roseville dental practice websites, recomputed as practices are re-audited. Most recent audit September 19, 2026. Methodology dps-37-v1.
75
median score
+2.00 vs California median 73
72.19
average score
California average: 69.62
85
top quartile
the score the best 25% of local websites clear
109
websites audited
of 14,085 across California
Score distribution
Grade distribution in Roseville
Counts use all 109 indexable audited Roseville websites.
A
8.26%
9 of 109
B
31.19%
34 of 109
C
22.94%
25 of 109
D
17.43%
19 of 109
F
20.18%
22 of 109
California distribution: A 4% · B 28% · C 27% · D 16% · F 25% (14,085 websites).
Largest local difference first
Where Roseville dental websites fall short
“Not detected” means a signal was absent from the homepage and up to two linked pages in a bounded crawl; it does not prove the signal is absent everywhere on the site. Every percentage shows its own evaluated base; checks evaluated on fewer than 30 Roseville websites are omitted.
95%
FAQPage structured data not detected
103 of 109 evaluated Roseville websites — vs 95.48% across California.
95%
Service or treatment structured data not detected
103 of 109 evaluated Roseville websites — vs 94.83% across California.
86%
AggregateRating structured data not detected
94 of 109 evaluated Roseville websites — vs 91.37% across California.
| Check | Roseville rate | California rate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detectedStructured data | 40.37%44 of 109 evaluated | 50.25%7,078 of 14,085 evaluated | −9.88 pp |
| XML sitemap not detectedWebsite fundamentals | 27.52%30 of 109 evaluated | 35.84%5,048 of 14,085 evaluated | −8.32 pp |
| Clear booking action not detectedPatient journey | 44.04%48 of 109 evaluated | 51.49%7,252 of 14,085 evaluated | −7.45 pp |
| BreadcrumbList structured data not detectedStructured data | 66.06%72 of 109 evaluated | 73.25%10,317 of 14,085 evaluated | −7.19 pp |
| Privacy-policy link not detectedPatient journey | 58.72%64 of 109 evaluated | 52.37%7,376 of 14,085 evaluated | +6.35 pp |
| Missing canonical tagsWebsite fundamentals | 34.86%38 of 109 evaluated | 40.58%5,716 of 14,085 evaluated | −5.72 pp |
| Unclear H1 structureWebsite fundamentals | 53.21%58 of 109 evaluated | 58.81%8,283 of 14,085 evaluated | −5.60 pp |
| AggregateRating structured data not detectedStructured data | 86.24%94 of 109 evaluated | 91.37%12,870 of 14,085 evaluated | −5.13 pp |
| Insurance or payment page not detectedPatient journey | 59.63%65 of 109 evaluated | 63.39%8,928 of 14,085 evaluated | −3.76 pp |
| Emergency-services page not detectedPatient journey | 64.22%70 of 109 evaluated | 67.40%9,493 of 14,085 evaluated | −3.18 pp |
| Missing meta descriptionsWebsite fundamentals | 40.37%44 of 109 evaluated | 43.23%6,089 of 14,085 evaluated | −2.86 pp |
| Contact or inquiry form not detectedPatient journey | 67.89%74 of 109 evaluated | 70.00%9,859 of 14,085 evaluated | −2.11 pp |
| FAQPage structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.50%103 of 109 evaluated | 95.48%13,449 of 14,085 evaluated | −0.98 pp |
| Images missing alternative textWebsite fundamentals | 65.14%71 of 109 evaluated | 65.96%9,291 of 14,085 evaluated | −0.82 pp |
| FAQ page not detectedPatient journey | 69.72%76 of 109 evaluated | 70.44%9,921 of 14,085 evaluated | −0.72 pp |
| Service or treatment structured data not detectedStructured data | 94.50%103 of 109 evaluated | 94.83%13,357 of 14,085 evaluated | −0.33 pp |
| Limited useful contentWebsite fundamentals | 41.28%45 of 109 evaluated | 41.15%5,796 of 14,085 evaluated | +0.13 pp |
2026 US study baseline
The frozen national picture for the same checks
Rates from the 50,405-website 2026 US study cohort — a frozen study base that counts every audited domain, so it is a different denominator than the live evaluated figures above and the two must not be read as one series.
Dentist or LocalBusiness structured data not detected38.72%
Insurance or payment page not detected51.40%
Clear booking action not detected42.35%
Missing meta descriptions33.36%
Emergency-services page not detected58.40%
FAQ page not detected65.47%
Unclear H1 structure53.80%
Missing canonical tags26.14%
Limited useful content32.11%
Contact or inquiry form not detected68.70%
FAQPage structured data not detected95.57%
Images missing alternative text74.25%
XML sitemap not detected24.75%
BreadcrumbList structured data not detected63.60%
AggregateRating structured data not detected91.06%
Service or treatment structured data not detected91.90%
Privacy-policy link not detected42.09%
Explore the Roseville market
Common questions
Dental SEO and website questions for Roseville
- How good are dental practice websites in Roseville?
- Across 109 audited Roseville dental practice websites, the median DentalPresence Score is 75 out of 100, and the best 25% of local sites score 85 or higher. The score summarizes 37 deterministic website and SEO checks covering structured data, website fundamentals, and the patient journey.
- What do Roseville dental websites most often get wrong?
- The most common gaps detected on audited Roseville dental websites are: “FAQPage structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “Service or treatment structured data not detected” (95% of evaluated sites); “AggregateRating structured data not detected” (86% of evaluated sites). “Not detected” is a bounded-crawl observation, not proof a signal is absent everywhere on a site.
- How does dental website quality in Roseville compare with the rest of California?
- Roseville's median score of 75 is 2 points above the California-wide median of 73, based on 14,085 audited websites across California.
- How can I check my own dental practice website's SEO?
- Run a free DentalPresence score: it audits a practice website against the same 37 checks behind every figure on this page and returns a prioritized list of what to fix first. No card is required.
Methodology and limitations
How these live figures are computed
Live cohort. Figures cover the indexable audited practice websites currently published for Roseville in the DentalPresence index and recompute as sites are re-audited, so they will drift from the frozen 2026 study numbers over time. Each check's percentage uses only the websites where that check was actually evaluated, shown as its base.
Scoring. Methodology dps-37-v1: a bounded HTTP crawl of robots.txt, sitemap signals, the homepage, and up to two linked internal pages, scored across 37 deterministic checks. “Not detected” is a limited observation, not proof of absence.
What is excluded. Crawl-accessibility findings (DNS failures, blocked crawls, timeouts) come from the frozen study run and use a different cohort base, so they are not restated here — see the California benchmark for them. Percentages are withheld wherever fewer than 30 websites form the base.
No clinical claims. Website signals only — not a clinical rating. These figures do not use rankings, traffic, conversions, credentials, or patient outcomes, and a failed check is not proof of lost revenue or poor care.
Use the benchmark
Score a dental website against the same framework
The Roseville figures describe a market, not an individual practice. Run a free score to inspect the public website signals detected for one practice — the same 37-check framework behind every number on this page.