← Back to SEO Report ← Page analysis

Legal Time Tracking Software — SEO Improvements

maatdesk.com/legal-time-tracking-software  ·  Maatdesk  ·  Keyword table + scan + rewrite 2026-09-29, internal-link / redundancy / proofread passes 2026-09-30  ·  Views/ServicePage/Content/legal-time-tracking-software/En/articlemetas.cshtml + Content/legal-time-tracking-software/En/article.cshtml + App_Data/ServiceEntities.xml + wwwroot/sitemap_video.xml + twelve pages linking in

URL https://maatdesk.com/legal-time-tracking-software
H1 / Target Keyword legal time tracking software
Highest-CPC phrase now on the page legal timekeeping and billing software
268 → 4,165
Visible words (15.5×) · 3,986 after the first rewrite
3 → 10
H2 sections · the old three included «FAQs»
5 → 17
FAQs · visible = FAQPage, generated from one list
6 → 9
Feature cards · each one documented behaviour
1 → 24
Internal links out · to 15 pages (was /ai-tools only)
5 → 17
Pages linking in · 12 added 09-30, one per page
4 → 0
Images without alt · the 5th said «case details client»
2 → 6
JSON-LD nodes · loose → @id-linked graph · 1 → 2 videos
0 → 10
«legal time tracking software» in the body · 590 / KD 31 / $51.02
0 → 18
«legal timekeeping software» · 260 / $51.02 · the term of art
0 → 13
«legal time and billing software» · 140 / $104.03 · GSC 7 @ 64.7
3 → 57
«time entry / time entries» · the 8-step section
0 → 24
«lawyer(s)» in the body · 36 gap keywords / 4,380 searches
1 → 30
«law firm(s)» · «attorney(s)» 3 → 24
39 → 53
Title tag chars · «for Law Firms» added
2 → 0
«Automatic Timers» · an undocumented claim, removed
THE HEADLINE: 390 impressions, 0 clicks, average position 31.65, and Google barely connects this URL with its own target term. «legal time tracking software» is 590 searches a month at $51.02, and in three months the page was shown for it 9 times, at position 36.9, only once in the US. Semrush puts Maatdesk outside the top 100 on the head term and on all 15 exact-match modifiers; it ranks on 4 of the 183 gap keywords (positions 27, 27, 41, 57). Behind the head term stood 268 visible words, no intro under the H1, six Title Case cards and five one-sentence FAQ answers. The words the market searches, timekeeping, time and billing, time management and time recording, appeared zero times: roughly 5,400 searches a month at KD 16–48, with CPCs up to $111. «Lawyer» never appeared in the body. Two claims were wrong: «Automatic Timers» (the timer is started by hand, one at a time) and an approval workflow for time (approval exists only for bills). So the work had three parts: a page deep enough to compete with Clio and MyCase, the four missing vocabularies placed where the copy can honestly hold them, and every claim checked against support.maatdesk.com.
The H1 & Meta Tags — H1 unchanged · title 39 → 53 chars · description rewritten from documented facts (162 → 156 chars) · og:image / twitter:image were EMPTY · og:url was relative · briefintro was empty
The H1 «Legal Time Tracking Software» was left alone. It is an exact match, it comes from name= in ServiceEntities.xml, and the URL and the SoftwareApplication name carry it too. Everything around it was the problem: a 39-character sentence-case title with no audience word, a 162-character description that truncated and read as a translation («guarantees the registration of billable time without losses»), empty og:image and twitter:image, a relative og:url, and nothing at all between the H1 and the hero video.
Content/legal-time-tracking-software/En/articlemetas.cshtml  ·  App_Data/ServiceEntities.xml  ·  WAS = the page as scanned 2026-09-29
@* [M1] TITLE — 39 → 53 CHARS (2026-09-29). Head term (590 vol, KD 31, $51.02) + "for Law Firms", which adds "law firm time tracking software" (260 vol) and matches the H1's Title Case. *@
@* was: Legal time tracking software | Maatdesk *@
<title>Legal Time Tracking Software for Law Firms | Maatdesk</title>

@* [M2] DESCRIPTION — REWRITTEN 2026-09-29, 156 chars. "guarantees ... without losses" was an overclaim and read as a translation; the old one truncated and had no "timekeeping", "law firm" or "attorney". *@
@* was: Legal time tracking software for lawyers. Maatdesk guarantees the registration of billable time without losses and creates time entries more logically and simply. *@
<meta name="description" content="Legal time tracking and timekeeping software for law firms: a timer on every matter, rates set by activity category, and unbilled time loaded into the bill." />

@* [M3] OG / TWITTER — og:title follows the title; og:description rewritten from documented facts (it repeated the overclaim); og:image + twitter:image were EMPTY → time-tracking.webp; twitter:card summary → summary_large_image. *@
@* OG:URL — WAS RELATIVE ("/legal-time-tracking-software"). Now https://maatdesk.com/legal-time-tracking-software. Canonical unchanged. *@

@* H1 — UNCHANGED. "Legal Time Tracking Software", rendered by ServicePageSkin.cshtml from ServiceEntities.xml name=. *@
@* [X1] INTRO PARAGRAPH — briefintro ADDED 2026-09-29 (was ""). Opens on the head term and carries "legal timekeeping and billing" ($111.17): *@
@* "Maatdesk is legal time tracking software for law firms, built into the same legal practice management platform ... Legal timekeeping and billing in one system, in the browser on any computer or phone, with nothing to install." *@
@* [X2] VIDEO ENTITY — vimeoslideid 1157608277 kept; NO youtubeslideid added: no YouTube copy of the Time Tracking hero video exists on the @Maatdesk channel. *@
@* [X3] PROOFREAD 2026-09-30 — "any desk or phone" → "any computer or phone". *@

@* [M4] JSON-LD IN THE METAS — the lone SoftwareApplication (no @id) became SoftwareApplication #software → WebPage #webpage → BreadcrumbList #breadcrumb; isPartOf a bare @id to https://maatdesk.com/#software; priceSpecification removed; the 13-item site-wide featureList replaced by 12 time-tracking features; WebPage.video lists #video and #video-activities. *@

@* NOT CHANGED: article:published_time 2024-09-11 kept, since it is the page's real first-publish date; modified_time is dynamic. Spanish stays urlspanish="x-disabled". *@

Why the description says «timekeeping» and the title says «for Law Firms». In the gap export «lawyer(s)» appears in 36 keywords (4,380 searches), «attorney(s)» in 29 (3,720) and «law firm(s)» in 32 (2,700). The old body used «attorney» 3×, «law firm» 1× and «lawyer» 0×. «Timekeeping» is the legal-industry term of art: MyCase's ranking page is literally «best legal timekeeping software», and «legal timekeeping software» is 260 searches at $51.02. The title gets the audience word, and the description gets the synonym. All three audience words are now in the body: «lawyer(s)» 0 → 24, «attorney(s)» 3 → 24, «law firm(s)» 1 → 30.

Keyword Coverage — Was / Now — 190 master-table rows in blocks A–H · 183 Semrush gap keywords (20,360 searches) + 10 bulk-sized GSC queries · 47 GSC queries · counted 2026-09-29 after the rewrite
Every negative delta in this table is a removed claim or a removed slogan. «Manual & Automatic Timers», «One-Click», «Editable Time Logs», «Case & Client Based Tracking», «revenue capture», «review workflows» and the old H2's «legal professionals» are gone, because none of them described documented behaviour. The Type column is the rule: PRI / SEC / SR / GSC rows are this page's subject; WRG rows belong to another Maatdesk page and are never targeted here; AUD / ENT are audience and brand words. MD is Maatdesk's position in the gap export (— = in the set but outside the top 100), and Best comp is the best of Clio / MyCase / Harvest. Blocks I (34 competitor-brand and off-topic keywords) and J (10 foreign-language / off-topic GSC queries) are summarised below the table. On-page work cannot address them.
SR-GAP 183 kw vs Clio /features/legal-time-expense-tracking/ · MyCase blog /best-legal-timekeeping-software/ · Harvest /legal-time-tracking-software  ·  SR-BULK 10 of 15 returned  ·  GSC 2026-06-28 → 2026-09-27  ·  WAS = scan, NOW = after the rewrite, 2026-09-29
KeywordTypeVolKDCPCGSC imprPosMDBest compWasNowΔNote
A. HEAD TERM - legal time tracking software (URL, title, H1, metas, schema) + its exact-match modifiers
legal time tracking softwarePRI59031$51.02936.9—Clio 1—10+10⭐ THE TARGET. Outside the top 100; was only in URL / title / H1 / metas. Now in the intro, definition card and FAQs
  ↳ time tracking software for lawyersSR48030$23.22———MyCase 1002+2«lawyer» was 0× in the body. Feature-card H2
  ↳ attorney time tracking softwareSR48034$54.88———MyCase 701+1Priority 3 in the opportunity ranking
  ↳ law firm time tracking softwareSR26030$48.11———MyCase 302+2In the new title via «for Law Firms»
  ↳ lawyer time tracking softwareSR21031$48.08———MyCase 801+1
  ↳ time tracking software for attorneysSR21031$48.08749.7—MyCase 801+1
  ↳ time tracking software for law firmsSR21032$48.111056.2—Clio 404+4GSC 10 @ 56.2; Clio 4
  ↳ law time tracking softwareSR9028$51.02———Clio 300·Not on the page
  ↳ time tracking software attorneySR9031$54.88———Clio 500·Not on the page
  ↳ time tracking software legalSR9032$51.02145.0—Clio 500·Not on the page
  ↳ law office time tracking softwareSR5028$0.00———Clio 401+1
  ↳ legal time-tracking softwareSR4031$39.77———Clio 1010+10Hyphen twin of the head term; Clio 1
  ↳ time tracking software lawyersSR4028$27.32———Clio 600·Not on the page
  ↳ best legal time tracking softwareSR5028$52.27746.1—MyCase 102+2Listicle intent: MyCase owns it
  ↳ best time tracking software for lawyersSR5020$27.53———Clio 1100·Not on the page
  ↳ free legal time tracking softwareSR4028$16.41———Clio 400·Not on the page
  ↳ legal time tracking software with secure client portalSR4023$0.00226.527MyCase 100·One of only 4 gap keywords Maatdesk holds (27)
  ↳ best law firm time tracking softwareGSC20—$0.00447.5—(bulk)00·Not on the page
  ↳ time tracking software for small law firmsGSC0—$0.00155.0—(bulk)00·
  ↳ time-tracking software for law firmsGSC20—$48.11154.0—(bulk)04+4
  ↳ legal time tracking software with risk management and bank-grade securityGSC4019$0.00175.0—(bulk)00·Not on the page
legal time trackingPRI11028$15.12342.3—Clio 9318+15+15. In the brief intro and the H2s
  ↳ legal timeSR11019$16.71———Clio 2327+24
  ↳ lawyer timeSR3027$12.00———Clio 5904+4
  ↳ time tracking legalSR7030$0.001341.4—Clio 400·Not on the page
  ↳ lawyer time trackingSR26032$27.32———Clio 2303+3
  ↳ time tracking for lawyersSR26023$27.32———Clio 601+1
  ↳ law firm time trackingSR11032$0.00———Clio 206+6
  ↳ time tracking for attorneysSR9031$27.32———Clio 701+1
  ↳ legal time trackerSR5032$33.04———Clio 1801+1
  ↳ time tracking for law firm profitabilitySR5014$0.00———MyCase 801+1
  ↳ ai time tracking for lawyersSR4042$21.96———MyCase 2000·Only if an AI capture feature exists
  ↳ time tracker legalGSC20—$0.00243.5—(bulk)00·Not on the page
  ↳ time tracking for law firmsSR5029$0.00———Clio 511·
time tracking / time-trackingPRI———————1054+44The only vocabulary the old page had
legal time tracking app (app / mobile)SEC5030$0.00———MyCase 704+4Answered as the browser on a phone, no native app
  ↳ lawyer time tracking appSR21022$16.31———Clio 701+1Same: web app, any device
  ↳ attorney time tracking appSR9016$16.31———MyCase 701+1
  ↳ time tracking app for lawyersSR7021$24.21———MyCase 900·Not on the page
  ↳ free time tracking app for lawyersSR9027$13.51———Clio 700·Not on the page
  ↳ attorney timekeeping appSR3023$16.31———MyCase 1400·Not on the page
B. TIME AND BILLING CLUSTER - the highest-CPC vocabulary in the export ($94-$111); page says "billing" but never "time and billing"
legal time and billing softwareSEC14035$104.03764.7—MyCase 2013+13⭐ $104.03. GSC 7 @ 64.7. Its own H2: «From the Timer to the Invoice»
  ↳ law firm time and billing softwareSR21030$81.51———MyCase 301+1
  ↳ lawyer time and billing softwareSR21030$104.03———MyCase 201+1210 at $104.03
  ↳ attorney time and billing softwareSR14029$94.86———MyCase 301+1
  ↳ time and billing software for law firmsSR11029$103.47———MyCase 303+3
  ↳ time and billing software for lawyersSR11029$94.86———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ time and billing software for attorneysSR5028$94.86———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ legal timekeeping and billing softwareSR7027$111.17578.6—MyCase 201+1$111.17: the highest CPC in the export
  ↳ timekeeping and billing software for attorneysSR4024$111.17———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ timekeeping and billing softwareSR5029$0.00———MyCase 402+2
  ↳ legal time tracking and billing softwareSR4030$97.64———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ time tracking and billing software for lawyersSR5028$0.00———MyCase 100·Not on the page
  ↳ billing invoicing time tracking software for lawyersSR7027$0.00———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ best legal time and billing softwareSR9029$0.00556.257MyCase 101+1Maatdesk 57 in the gap export; carried by a FAQ
  ↳ legal time & billing softwareSR7027$52.07164.0—MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ law office time and billing softwareSR4033$0.00———MyCase 301+1
  ↳ legal time billing softwareSR11042$52.07———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ time billing software for lawyersSR9048$104.03———MyCase 300·Not on the page
  ↳ attorney time billing softwareSR7042$104.03———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ time billing software for attorneysSR4031$104.03———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ time billing software attorneysSR4041$94.86———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ time billing software lawyersSR4039$94.86———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ law firm time billing softwareSR5026$103.47———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ time billing software for solo attorneysSR706$0.00———Harvest 3801+1
  ↳ time billing programsSR7047$54.78———MyCase 800·Not on the page
  ↳ time billing programSR3048$22.06———MyCase 900·Not on the page
  ↳ billing time softwareSR5033$54.78142.0—MyCase 800·Not on the page
  ↳ time billing and invoicing softwareSR4030$0.00———MyCase 1100·Not on the page
  ↳ legal billing and time tracking softwareGSC———1656.8——00·GSC 16 @ 56.8. Google already tests the page for this; not Semrush-sized
  ↳ automated timekeeping and billing softwareGSC———2069.7——00·Largest named GSC query (20 @ 69.7). Not used: no automatic capture exists
legal billing software automatic time entriesLT5032$0.00143.041MyCase 100·Not on the page
billing / billing accuracy / billing workflowsSEC———————634+28
invoicing / invoicesSEC———————33·
C. TIMEKEEPING CLUSTER - 20 keywords, ~2,000 searches/mo, $40-$67 CPC; the word "timekeeping" appears 0x anywhere on the page
legal timekeeping softwareSEC26033$51.02———MyCase 2018+18⭐ «timekeeping» was 0× anywhere. Now in the definition-card H2
  ↳ attorney timekeeping softwareSR32033$48.08350.0—MyCase 102+2Largest timekeeping keyword; MyCase 1
  ↳ law firm timekeeping softwareSR21033$55.75———MyCase 301+1
  ↳ timekeeping software for lawyersSR21033$27.32———MyCase 501+1
  ↳ lawyer timekeeping softwareSR11032$54.88———MyCase 601+1
  ↳ timekeeping software for attorneysSR9031$39.77———MyCase 401+1
  ↳ timekeeping software for law firmsSR7029$48.11———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ best legal timekeeping softwareSR7029$54.81———MyCase 101+1
  ↳ legal timekeepingSR7024$22.36———Clio 1010+10Clio 1
  ↳ attorney timekeeperSR5021$42.06———Clio 801+1
  ↳ attorney time keeping softwareSR4031$0.00———MyCase 600·Not on the page
  ↳ lawyer timekeepingSR4027$24.41———Clio 201+1
  ↳ time keeping software for lawyersSR4031$66.68———MyCase 600·Not on the page
  ↳ timekeeping software attorneysSR4030$54.88———MyCase 100·Not on the page
  ↳ attorney timekeepingSR3016$42.06———Clio 302+2
  ↳ legal time keeping softwareSR3038$51.02———MyCase 400·Not on the page
  ↳ timekeeping for lawyersSR3018$42.06———MyCase 200·Not on the page
  ↳ best ai timekeeping platform for law firmsSR7027$0.00———MyCase 300·Not on the page
  ↳ ai timekeeping platforms billable utilizationSR7023$0.00———Clio 1700·Not on the page
D. TIME MANAGEMENT / TIME RECORDING / TIME ENTRY - synonyms the page never uses except "time entry"
legal time management softwareSEC32033$51.02———MyCase 205+5320 at $51.02, carried by the timesheet section
  ↳ attorney time management softwareSR17028$54.88———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ time management software for lawyersSR17030$54.88———MyCase 401+1
  ↳ time management software for law firmsSR5029$55.75———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ law firm time management softwareSR4038$55.75———MyCase 201+1
legal time recording softwareSEC17032$51.02———Clio 103+3Timesheet section
  ↳ law firm time recording softwareSR14029$48.11———MyCase 201+1
  ↳ time recording software for lawyersSR14018$54.88———Clio 1301+1KD 18: lowest of any $50+ keyword
  ↳ time recording software legalSR5030$51.02145.0—MyCase 100·Not on the page
  ↳ time recording software for law firmsSR3026$55.75———Clio 400·Not on the page
  ↳ time recording for solicitorsSR4027$0.00———Clio 200·Not on the page
  ↳ matter-based time recording software for lawyersGSC———451.8——00·The old «Case & Client Based Tracking» card, in other words
time entry / time entriesPRI———————357+54+54. The 8-step section
  ↳ time entry software for law firmsSR5030$0.00———Clio 201+1
  ↳ legal time entry softwareSR3030$33.65———MyCase 101+1
time logs / time reportsSEC———————20-2«Editable Time Logs» card replaced
E. FEATURE VOCABULARY ON THE PAGE (H3 cards, FAQ answers, schema) and the Semrush / GSC terms that map to it
billable hours / billable timePRI———————114+13+13
  ↳ how do lawyers track billable hoursSR21020$5.48———MyCase 5803+3⭐ Its own H2. Best competitor at 58
  ↳ billable hours softwareSR17081$14.43———MyCase 800·KD 81, avoided
  ↳ legal billable hour trackingSR11025$0.00———Clio 601+1
  ↳ software for managing billable hoursSR7020$0.00———MyCase 701+1
  ↳ billable hours programSR4016$13.95———MyCase 1300·Not on the page
  ↳ how do lawyers track their timeSR4028$11.13———MyCase 8601+1
  ↳ billable time tracking for mspsGSC———451.2——00·
non-billable hours / internal timeSEC———————228+26
manual & automatic timers / live timersSEC———————20-2«Automatic Timers» was undocumented: removed
  ↳ lawyer timerSR905$8.51———Clio 1101+1KD 5
  ↳ law timerSR709$14.81———MyCase 6201+1
  ↳ legal timerSR4014$16.71———Clio 901+1
  ↳ lawyers time clockSR3023$13.93———Clio 5900·Not on the page
one-click time entry / single clickSEC———————21-1«One-Click» card removed
automatic time capture / time capturedSEC———————54-1Said only where true: «the bookkeeping is automatic»
  ↳ what is legal-grade automated time tracking?GSC———37.3——00·Page 1 already; the definition card answers it
  ↳ automatic time capture legal softwareGSC0—$0.00347.0—(bulk)00·
  ↳ automated time capture software for small legal teamsGSC10—$0.00347.3—(bulk)00·Not on the page
  ↳ automated time tracking for law firmsGSC10—$0.00361.0—(bulk)00·Not on the page
  ↳ legal time capture softwareGSC10—$0.00244.0—(bulk)00·Not on the page
  ↳ automated time capture legal industryGSC———266.0——00·
  ↳ time capture software for attorneysGSC30—$0.00150.0—(bulk)00·Not on the page
  ↳ madeactual time tracking skipGSC———149.0——00·Junk string
case & client based tracking / matter-based time entriesSEC———————20-2Card replaced
expense trackingSEC———————11·
  ↳ law firm expense trackingSR4011$0.00———Clio 401+1Put back in step 5 (K1)
  ↳ expense management for law firmsSR408$0.00———Clio 4201+1
reporting / billing-ready reportsSEC———————37+4
  ↳ law firm custom reporting softwareSR405$0.00———Harvest 6100·Not on the page
productivity / workload visibilitySEC———————27+5
  ↳ law firm productivity softwareSR5021$0.00———MyCase 4201+1
  ↳ ny legal productivity tracking programs at workSR507$0.00———Clio 9500·Not on the page
revenue captureSEC———————20-2Old FAQ wording
  ↳ revenueGSC———12.0——22·
attorney time tracking template / timesheetSEC9013$6.23———MyCase 4206+6The timesheet comparison section
  ↳ attorney timesheetSR7013$12.05———MyCase 5703+3
cloud-based / secure SaaS platformSEC—————————·
legal workflows / review workflowsSEC———————30-3«review workflows» implied approval of time
AI matter summary (internal link → /ai-tools)SEC———————11·
legal practice management softwareSEC————————7+7In the brief intro: the platform this sits in
F. AUDIENCE WORDS (Body = count in visible copy)
lawyers / lawyerAUD————————24+2436 gap keywords / 4,380 searches
attorneys / attorneyAUD———————324+21
law firms / law firmAUD———————130+29
legal professionalsAUD———————10-1The old H2
legal teams / staffAUD———————11·
solo / small law firmsAUD———————02+2
G. BRAND / ENTITY
maatdeskENT———————548+43
  ↳ maatdesk loginGSC———29.5——00·
  ↳ maatdesk legal task management softwareWRG3200$0.00128.027—00·Ranks 27 on THIS URL; belongs to /task-management-tool-for-attorneys
H. SEMRUSH GAP KEYWORDS THAT BELONG TO ANOTHER MAATDESK PAGE (do NOT target here - cannibalisation risk)
attorney billing software (→ /legal-billing-software)WRG59029$76.14———MyCase 14019+19+19 on another page’s keyword: owned by /legal-billing-software, which the page links. Worth a cannibalisation check; the .txt does not comment on it
  ↳ billing software for attorneysWRG48026$59.34———MyCase 1102+2Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ lawyer billing softwareWRG48025$85.39———MyCase 6100·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best legal billing softwareWRG32029$60.51———MyCase 1400·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ billing software legalWRG26028$59.34———MyCase 6800·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ attorney billing programsWRG11027$66.19———MyCase 4900·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best law firm billing softwareWRG11029$97.12———MyCase 3500·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best billing software for lawyersWRG9027$60.51———MyCase 3800·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best attorney billing softwareWRG7029$0.00———MyCase 4500·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ lawyer billing programsWRG7030$76.14———MyCase 4200·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ billing software lawyersWRG5031$85.39———MyCase 4300·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ free attorney billing softwareWRG5018$13.31———MyCase 6100·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best legal billing programs for attorneysWRG5027$0.00———MyCase 5100·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ attorney billing software freeWRG3036$24.45———MyCase 5600·Another page's subject: never targeted here
legal task management software (→ /task-management-tool-for-attorneys)WRG26021$96.50———MyCase 7800·Another page's subject: never targeted here
deadline tracking software law firm (→ /legal-calendaring-software)WRG7029$0.00———MyCase 100·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ track deadlines law firmWRG5016$0.00———Clio 9600·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ lawyer calendar softwareWRG4018$0.00———MyCase 8800·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best legal calendaring softwareWRG3018$34.88———MyCase 8500·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ scheduling software for law firmsWRG4021$0.00———MyCase 8300·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ statute of limitation tracking softwareGSC———329.3——00·
litigation tracking software (→ /legal-case-management-software)WRG14022$37.85———Clio 7700·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ legal tracking softwareWRG11030$61.65———Harvest 2000·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ legal tracker softwareWRG9017$23.12———Clio 3600·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ legal trackingWRG5024$12.58———Clio 1400·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ case tracking software law firmWRG7019$0.00———MyCase 8800·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ legal timeline softwareWRG21018$0.00———Clio 7900·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ timeline software for lawyersWRG11012$17.02———Harvest 5700·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ best timeline software for lawyersWRG5011$0.00———MyCase 2100·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ record keeping softwareWRG21022$17.00———Clio 5800·Another page's subject: never targeted here
  ↳ recordkeeping softwareWRG5020$17.00———Clio 4900·Another page's subject: never targeted here
Was / Now count the visible copy (headings, card text, FAQ answers, image alts); Razor comments, metas and JSON-LD are excluded, and the H1 is rendered by the skin, so it is not counted. «—» in Was = the phrase lived only in metas / schema. Hyphens count as spaces. Rankings did not move between Was and Now. GSC, Semrush, MD and Best comp are the pre-rewrite exports, and measuring the effect needs a fresh Positions export in 4–6 weeks. Left out of the table: block I, 34 gap keywords (22 competitor-brand navigational, e.g. time59 1,300, clio legal billing software 260, case time 210, wisetime ×2; 12+ off-topic, e.g. request / call tracking, payroll, HR, CLE), and block J, 10 GSC queries (timetrack advogados 16 @ 94.6, four Dutch questions at positions 4–17, German, French, «time matters software», «time metrics legal»). 46 rows are still «n/d»: 26 on-page / audience / brand words and 20 GSC-only queries.
What the Data Says — 47 GSC queries + 183 gap keywords + 10 bulk keywords · the analysis of the page as scanned, before the rewrite
GSC 2026-06-28 → 2026-09-27: /legal-time-tracking-software 390 impressions · 0 clicks · avg position 31.65 · 49% anonymised · 83% desktop · 62% US · 93% shown as a Review snippet
1. Not ranking badly, mostly not ranking THIS DECIDED THE APPROACH
MeasureValueRead
«legal time tracking software», GSC query filter9 impr @ 36.9 · 0 clicksOne US impression in three months (pos 41) on a 590-search, $51.02 term
Semrush gap, MD column4 of 183 · pos 27, 27, 41, 57Outside the top 100 on the head term and all 15 exact-match modifiers; the only one held is the client-portal long tail (27)
The whole URL390 impr @ 31.65 · 0 clicks47 named queries carry 197 impressions; 49% anonymised (calendaring: 11%)
Monthly trendJul 165 @ 37.2 · Aug 127 @ 30.5 · Sep 96 @ 22.6Position improving while volume falls. The improvement comes from long-tail and conversational queries, not the head cluster
Peak days09-25 39 @ 7.2 · 07-31 33 @ 13.3 · 08-07 24 @ 10.4 · 08-01 19 @ 8.4Impressions on 80 of 92 days; the page-1 days are long tails
Search appearanceReview snippet 364 (93%) @ 33.4From the site-wide Elfsight aggregateRating
Country / deviceUS 121 of 196 · Desktop 163 / Mobile 33 / Tablet 183% desktop, the B2B research pattern; South Africa 20 and Portugal 16 are one query each
Compare /legal-calendaring-software, which sat at positions 30–37 on nearly all its head variants before its rewrite. This page was not ranking badly on its cluster. It was mostly not ranking, so depth and vocabulary had to come before any snippet work.
2. The vocabulary the market searches was missing entirely ALL FOUR NOW ON THE PAGE
VocabularyOn the page (scan)KeywordsSearchesKDCPC
time and billing0×292,24024–48up to $111.17
timekeeping0×191,85016–38up to $66.68
time management0×575028–38$51–$56
time recording0×657018–32up to $55.75
lawyer / lawyers0× in the body364,380——
The page said «time tracking» 10 times and nothing else. «attorney timekeeping software» alone is 320 searches at KD 33. The page cannot rank for words it never uses.
3. Time and billing is where the money is: 15 keywords at $94–$111 a click
KeywordVolKDCPCGSCMyCase
legal timekeeping and billing software7027$111.175 @ 78.62
timekeeping and billing software for attorneys4024$111.17—2
legal time and billing software14035$104.037 @ 64.72
lawyer time and billing software21030$104.03—2
time and billing software for law firms11029$103.47—3
attorney time and billing software14029$94.86—3
time and billing software for lawyers11029$94.86—2
Google already tests the page for this intent: «legal billing and time tracking software» 16 @ 56.8, «automated timekeeping and billing software» 20 @ 69.7, «best legal time and billing software» 5 @ 56.2 (Semrush MD 57). These phrases contain «time», so they belong here. The pure «billing software» phrases (block H) belong to /legal-billing-software. The page therefore had to describe how time entries become invoices, and link to the billing page, to hold both.
4. The cheap wins: low KD, questions and one-sentence tails
KeywordVolKDCPCWhy it matters
time recording software for lawyers14018$54.88Lowest KD of any $50+ keyword in the export. GSC also surfaces «matter-based time recording software for lawyers» (4 @ 51.8), which is the old «Case & Client Based Tracking» card in other words
legal time recording software · law firm time recording software170 · 14032 · 29$51.02 · $48.11Same wording, carried by the timesheet section
how do lawyers track billable hours21020$5.48The largest question in the export; the best competitor sits at 58. It now has its own H2
what is legal-grade automated time tracking?———GSC 3 @ 7.3, already on page 1; the definition card answers it
lawyer timer · law timer · legal timer90 · 70 · 405 · 9 · 14$8–$17The page already had a «Timers» H3; the phrases were absent
attorney time tracking template · attorney timesheet90 · 7013 · 13$6–$12Searches from firms still on spreadsheets; became the timesheet comparison section
lawyer / attorney time tracking app210 · 9022 · 16$16.31Answered as the browser on a phone, no native app claimed
law firm expense tracking · expense management for law firms40 · 4011 · 8$0Old FAQ #3 already said «expense tracking»; now step 5
Two of the five old FAQ questions named Maatdesk («How does Maatdesk make…», «What … built directly into Maatdesk?»). Nobody searches those brand strings, so they were replaced by the sized questions above.
5. What the competitors hold, 183 gap keywords
PageRankedTop 10Top 3What it is
MyCase1478347A «best legal timekeeping software» listicle, not a product page. Owns the time-and-billing and timekeeping clusters (positions 1–3 on most)
Clio1206817Product feature page «legal time & expense tracking». #1 on the head term, on «legal time-tracking software» and on «legal timekeeping»
Harvest7761Generic time tracker with a legal landing page; #6 on the head term
Maatdesk400Positions 27, 27, 41, 57
The SERP is split between a comparison listicle (MyCase) and a deep product page (Clio). Maatdesk's page was neither: it had no comparison content and less product depth than Clio. At KD 28–35 against these two, content depth had to come first.
6. What not to read into the data
  • GSC is noisy and half-anonymised. The named rows include four Dutch questions plus German, French and Portuguese queries, a junk string («madeactual time tracking skip», 14 @ 9) and an MSP query. The improving position (37.2 → 30.5 → 22.6) is the long tail, not the page gaining on «legal time tracking software».
  • Automated time capture is not a demand cluster. The bulk pull sized the five «capture / automated» GSC queries at 0–30 searches each with $0.00 CPC. Of the 10 returned, only «time-tracking software for law firms» (20 @ $48.11) carries commercial value. «legal time tracking software with risk management and bank-grade security» (40, KD 19, AI Overview + PAA) reads like an AI-assistant prompt.
  • One ranking belongs to another page. «maatdesk legal task management software» (320 vol, KD 0) ranks 27 on this URL, and was also found on /legal-calendaring-software. /task-management-tool-for-attorneys is not winning its own brand term anywhere.
  • KD is optimistic. On /legal-calendaring-software the bulk pull disagreed with the gap export by 3–7 KD points.
Content Changes — 268 → 4,165 words · 6 Title Case cards → 9 documented-behaviour cards · rebuilt on the /legal-contact-management-software template · 2026-09-29 → 30
The old body was an H2 over five images, then six one-line Title Case cards («Start, Stop, and Log Time Instantly with a Single Click…») and five one-sentence FAQ answers («Maatdesk ensures time is captured correctly and applied properly.»). Nothing on it could be quoted as an answer. Two claims were not documented: «Manual & Automatic Timers» (the timekeeper is started manually, one at a time) and, in FAQ #3, an approval workflow for time (approval exists only for bills). Every card, step and FAQ now states behaviour that support.maatdesk.com documents: the timekeeper, formats, Save and Associate Time Entry, No Matter time, Non-Billable / Non-Charge, statuses, rate order, Quick Bill, the billed lock, and the Activities and Productivity reports.
Content/legal-time-tracking-software/En/article.cshtml  ·  App_Data/ServiceEntities.xml  ·  product sources: support.maatdesk.com getting-started-with-time-entries · how-to-work-with-activity-categories · getting-started-with-billing · understanding-activities-module · understanding-reports-module · understanding-dashboard
Page totals: before vs now
MeasureBeforeNow
Visible words (metas + body + FAQs + alt)2684,165
Paragraph under the H1 (briefintro)none1
H2 sections310
FAQs (visible + FAQPage)517
Internal links out1 (/ai-tools)24 links to 15 pages
External links to authoritative sources01 (ABA Model Rule 1.5)
Pages linking in517
Images without alt4 of 50 of 5
Videos1 (Vimeo hero)2 (+ YouTube BigUt_oku38)
JSON-LD nodes2 loose6 linked
Two word counts appear in the log: 3,986 visible words right after the 09-29 rewrite (the figure in the keyword table's header note), and 4,165 at the end of the passes (section 8.1). The difference is the K1/K2 keyword passes. The 09-30 redundancy pass cut repeated sentences, and no ranked keyword count went down.
Structure now: the /legal-contact-management-software template, index under the hero video
  • Brief intro under the H1: opens on the head term, carries «legal timekeeping and billing» ($111.17), and states it runs in the browser on any computer or phone NEW · WAS EMPTY
  • «On this page» index: one anchor per H2, under the hero video NEW
  • What Is Legal Time Tracking Software, and How Is It Different From Legal Timekeeping Software?: a definition prose-card that states the limits (no passive capture, web app); carries the head term, «legal timekeeping software», «attorney timekeeping software», «legal time and billing software», «time tracking for law firms», «attorney timekeeper» NEW · DEFINITION
  • Law Firm Time Tracking in Five Screens: caption paragraph added over the five screenshots; each alt describes its screen and carries one ranked phrase CAPTION + ALTS
  • Time Tracking Software for Lawyers, Built Into Every Matter: 9 cards, each one documented behaviour (replaces «Smart Time Tracking for Law Firms» and its 6 cards); billing, tasks and matters link to their owner pages CARDS REPLACED
  • How Legal Time Tracking Works in Maatdesk: 8 numbered steps; step 7 says approval applies to the bill, not the time entry (old FAQ #3 was wrong); step 5 carries law firm expense tracking NEW
  • Legal Time and Billing Software: From the Timer to the Invoice: three-moment cards + closing paragraph; links /legal-billing-software and /legal-trust-account-management-software NEW · $94–$111 CLUSTER
  • Legal Timekeeping Software Instead of an Attorney Timesheet: lead, comparison table, «What your firm gains» list; the left column is a generic spreadsheet, never a named competitor NEW
  • How Do Lawyers Track Billable Hours?: prose-card + external link to ABA Model Rule 1.5 NEW · GEO
  • Time Records That Hold Up, on Any Device: phone = the browser, no native app; protections listed are documented ones only (billed lock, delete rule, closed matters, category permissions) NEW
  • Law Firm Time Tracking on the Dashboard: Activities Over Time: YouTube BigUt_oku38 embedded NEW · VIDEO
  • Legal Time Tracking FAQs for Law Firms: 17, the FAQPage generated from the same list 5 → 17
The old page had three H2s, one of them a label: «Smart Time Tracking for Law Firms» / «Efficient Time-Tracking for Legal Professionals» / «FAQs». Two phrases the first draft had dropped were put back (K1): «time tracking for law firms» (50 vol, held by the old H2) and «law firm expense tracking» (40, KD 11, held by old FAQ #3). The page already ranked with them.
Change log: every entry, in order, with the reason (section 8 of the .txt)
#DateWhatWhy
M109-29Title «Legal Time Tracking Software for Law Firms | Maatdesk»Head term alone (590, KD 31, $51.02); «for Law Firms» adds law firm time tracking software (260) and matches the H1's case
M209-29Meta description rewritten from documented facts«guarantees … without losses» was an overclaim; 162 chars truncated; no «timekeeping», «law firm» or «attorney»
M309-29og:title / og:description; og:image + twitter:image → time-tracking.webp; twitter:card summary_large_image; og:url absoluteEmpty image = no social card; og:url must be absolute
M409-29JSON-LD: lone SoftwareApplication → #software → #webpage → #breadcrumb; isPartOf bare @id; priceSpecification removed; 12 time-tracking featureList itemsNo @id, mainEntityOfPage or isPartOf; inline provider; a node Google's parser rejects. No passive time capture claimed, because none exists
X109-29briefintro added in ServiceEntities.xmlThe skin renders it under the H1; the template and /e-signature have one
X209-29vimeoslideid kept, no youtubeslideidNo YouTube copy of the Time Tracking hero video exists
B1–B1109-29Body rewritten on the /legal-contact-management-software template: index, definition card, five-screens caption + alts, 9 cards, 8 steps, time and billing, timesheet, billable hours + ABA link, any-device card, dashboard video, 17 FAQs268 words against a $51 head term; «Automatic Timers» and a time-approval workflow were wrong; four vocabularies missing; «lawyer» 0×
B1209-29VideoObject #video fixed, #video-activities added, FAQPage given @id #faqOld VideoObject had no about / isPartOf / duration / transcript and a placeholder uploadDate; FAQ answer #3 differed from the visible text
V109-29sitemap_video.xml entry corrected: thumbnail 404 → time-tracking.jpg (200), title «Time Tracking», duration 43, date 2026-01-23Values must match VideoObject #video; a 404 thumbnail blocks video indexing
V209-29Second <video:video> entry for BigUt_oku38 (28 s, 2026-09-02)The page now carries a second video
K109-29«time tracking for law firms» and «law firm expense tracking» put backThe page already ranked with them
K209-2926 further phrases placed where the copy can honestly hold them: attorney timekeeper, law office time tracking software, lawyer time tracking software, legal timer, legal time tracker, law firm productivity software, expense management for law firms, five time-and-billing phrases, four time-management phrases, three billable-hours phrases, seven FAQ phrasesUnused gap phrases with real volume and low-to-mid KD that describe what the page already documents
L1–L309-30Links out: «calendar event» → /legal-calendaring-software · «client» → /legal-contact-management-software · «trust funds» → /legal-trust-account-management-softwareInternal-link audit; client billing rates are set on the contact; no link to the trust page existed
8.809-3012 links in, one per page, on a sentence that already talks about time trackingOnly five pages linked in; tells Google which page owns the topic
D1–D509-30Redundancy clean-up: definition-card opening, step 8, billable-hours card, phone paragraph, five FAQ answersPassages 76–90% similar to each other; rule: keep the higher-value keywords, cut the repeated sentence
P1–P1909-30Proofread: subject-verb agreement, double colons, US spelling, comma splices, «overwritten» → «overridden», the automatic-capture FAQ contradictionKeyword counts unchanged except «billing software legal» 1 → 0, an accidental match owned by /legal-billing-software
Images: 5 → 5, and every alt now describes its screen RESOLVED 09-29
Four of the five screenshots had no alt, and the fifth, activities-ot.webp, said «case details client», copied from the case-management page. The word «time» was in zero alts. Each alt now describes its screen (new-entry, billed-totals, activities-over-time-graph, time-tracking, activities-ot) and carries one ranked phrase: law firm time tracking software (260), time recording software for lawyers (140, KD 18), legal time entry software, billable hours. og:image and twitter:image now point at time-tracking.webp. Not touched: the image count. The H2 that sat over the five images with no text now has a caption paragraph.
FAQ Block — 5 → 17 — two of the five questions were branded · one answer claimed a workflow that does not exist · schema answer #3 differed from the page
All three defects were in the FAQ. Every answer was one generic sentence. Two questions named Maatdesk, a brand string nobody searches. FAQ #3 claimed an approval workflow for time entries; approval exists only for bills. On top of that, the FAQPage copy of answer #3 left out the /ai-tools sentence the page shows. Now each answer opens with a self-standing sentence, and question and answer text are generated from one list, so the visible FAQ and the FAQPage schema are identical.
article.cshtml  ·  5 → 17 in pass B11  ·  FAQPage #faq generated from the same list  ·  answers trimmed in D5, corrected in P6 / P7 / P9 / P18
The five questions as scanned
1Why does accurate legal time tracking require purpose-built software? REWRITTEN
2How does Maatdesk make time tracking easier for attorneys and staff? BRANDED
3What time tracking features are built directly into Maatdesk? BRANDED · WRONG APPROVAL CLAIM · SCHEMA DRIFT
4How does disciplined time tracking improve billing accuracy and revenue capture? REWRITTEN
5What advantages does consistent legal time tracking provide to a firm? REWRITTEN
The log records the FAQ by topic, not as an ordered list of 17, so the new questions are not numbered here. The ones it names are listed below.
What the 17 now cover, and what they say «no» to
  • What is legal time tracking software?: the definition, reworded in D1 so it no longer repeats the card
  • How do lawyers track billable hours?: kept for its keyword (210, KD 20), rewritten in D5
  • How does the timer work?: billing-user wording fixed in P9
  • Can I enter time manually?: the Add Time Entry panel (P7)
  • Can a time entry be edited after it is billed?: the billed lock (P6)
  • Automatic capture: «What Maatdesk does automatically is the bookkeeping» (P18). No passive capture is claimed
  • Rates: set by activity category, rates «overridden» (P11)
  • Phone: the browser on any phone, no native app; shortened in D5
  • Invoice: unbilled time loaded into the bill; shortened in D5
  • What is included: time tracking in every plan; shortened in D5
  • «Best» legal time and billing software: carries the phrase Maatdesk ranks 57 for; reworded in D5
  • Reports: Activities Over Time / by Matter / by Contact, Productivity
  • Keyword phrases carried by the FAQ (K2): law timer (70, KD 9), lawyer timekeeping software (110), timekeeping software for attorneys (90), timekeeping software for law firms (70), legal time billing software (110, $52.07), best legal timekeeping software (70), best legal time and billing software (90).
  • Removed from the FAQ vocabulary: the approval workflow for time, «revenue capture», the two branded questions. Approval is described where it applies: on the bill (step 7).
Links — out: 1 → 24 links to 15 pages · in: 5 → 17 pages · 1 outbound citation for GEO · every adjacent module points at its owner
The page linked out once, to /ai-tools, and only five pages linked in: HomePageSkin, /ai-tools, /e-signature, /legal-calendaring-software and the «Benefits of Time Tracking Software for Law Firms» blog post. On 2026-09-30 an internal-link audit added 12 inbound links, one per page, each on a sentence that already talks about time tracking. That sends the reader to the page that covers it, and tells Google which page owns the topic.
article.cshtml + 12 pages · passes B4, B6, B8, L1–L3, 8.8 · 2026-09-29 and 2026-09-30 · each file carries its own @* SEO 2026-09-30 *@ comment
6.1 Outbound internal: 24 links to 15 pages B4 · B6 · L1–L3
The log totals 24 links to 15 pages but names only the destinations above. The rule is anti-cannibalisation: billing, tasks, matters, calendar and trust are linked to their owners, never targeted here. Block H of the keyword table is the reason: 2,760 searches of «attorney / lawyer billing software», 260 of «legal task management software» and 1,090 of timeline / tracking / record-keeping belong to other pages.
6.2 Inbound internal: 5 → 17 pages, one link each +12 · 8.8
PageAnchor textWhere on the page
/legal-billing-softwareLegal Time TrackingWork & Time Tracking card
/web-appbillable hoursTime Entries on the Go card
/task-management-tool-for-attorneysTime EntriesTime Tracking on Tasks card
/communication-managementtimers or manual entriesSimplified Time Tracking card
/legal-trust-account-management-softwaretime trackingFAQ answer: visible text unchanged, so its FAQPage still matches
/maatdesk-for-gmailTime EntryTime Tracking card, reworded (see below)
/factstime trackingplan-contents answer
/blog-post/how-much-does-legal-practice-management-software-costtime trackingsolo-attorney paragraph
/blog-post/legal-software-data-migrationTime entriesTime and expenses row
/blog-post/legal-software-implementation-checklisttime entriesTime and billing row
/blog-post/ai-legal-software-for-law-firmstrack time accuratelybilling paragraph
/blog-post/maatdesk-the-new-standardtrack your billable hoursopening paragraph
/maatdesk-for-gmail claimed email becomes billable hours «Automatically». Support documents no automatic capture and no time entry created inside Gmail, so the card now reads «Emails You Save from Gmail Land on the Matter, So the Time Spent on Them Can Be Recorded There as a Billable Time Entry.» Its schema still says «track billable time directly from Gmail», which is an open item.
6.3 Outbound citation: the GEO pass B8
«How Do Lawyers Track Billable Hours?» links ABA Model Rule 1.5 (Fees). It gives fee reasonableness a source other than Maatdesk. Neutral citations are what generative engines weight, and the question is the largest in the gap export, with the best competitor at 58. Proofread P13 fixed the sentence so «which» no longer pointed at the rule. Not added yet: ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 and Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5.
JSON-LD & Entity Data — 2 loose nodes → 6 @id-linked · 1 VideoObject → 2, both with duration + transcript · FAQPage 5 → 17 with @id #faq · site-wide featureList → 12 time-tracking features
The metas emitted a lone SoftwareApplication with no @id, not the three-node graph used on /e-signature, /ai-tools and /legal-calendaring-software. It had no isPartOf to https://maatdesk.com/#software, no mainEntityOfPage, an inline provider, a priceSpecification Google's parser rejects, and the 13-item site-wide featureList (AI Tools, E-Signature, Calendaring…). In the article, the VideoObject had no duration, transcript, about or isPartOf, and its uploadDate 2025-01-01T08:00:00+08:00 looked like a placeholder. The FAQPage had no @id, and its answer #3 differed from the page.
The graph
2 loose nodes → #software → #webpage → #breadcrumb, with #video, #video-activities and #faq
Was NO @id
  • articlemetas: SoftwareApplication «Maatdesk Legal Time Tracking Software», 3 Offers, 13-item site-wide featureList
  • article: VideoObject (@id #video, correct Vimeo id) + FAQPage (no @id, no isPartOf)
Now M4 · SAME SHAPE AS THE TEMPLATE
articlemetasSoftwareApplication → WebPage → BreadcrumbList, with @ids
articleVideoObject ×2 + FAQPage #faq (17 Q&A)
isPartOfa bare @id reference to https://maatdesk.com/#software
WebPage.video#video and #video-activities
VideoObject #video
The Vimeo hero: real date, duration and transcript
Changed B12 · V1
videoVimeo 1157608277, kept; no YouTube copy exists
uploadDateplaceholder 2025-01-01 → 2026-01-23T10:10:13-05:00 (Vimeo oEmbed)
duration43 s, added
transcriptfrom a local faster-whisper transcription (legal-time-tracking-software_video.txt)
sitemap_videothumbnail was the billing image at an old path (404) → time-tracking.jpg (200)
Why
  • A 404 thumbnail blocks video indexing, and the sitemap values must match the VideoObject on the page
VideoObject #video-activities
Activities Over Time, 28 s: new
Added B10 · V2
videoYouTube BigUt_oku38, published 2026-09-02; no other page on the site uses it
transcriptcorrected by hand: YouTube's auto-captions mis-hear the brand («My desk», «MyCase», «Clio»)
sitemap_videosecond <video:video> entry, maxresdefault thumbnail
What it does
  • Shows time entries charted beside expenses and flat fees, which backs the reports card and step 8 on camera
  • The channel has no English time-tracking video, so this clip was used
FAQPage #faq
5 questions, one drifting → 17 identical to the page
What changed B11 · B12
  • Given an @id; generated from the same list as the visible accordion, so answer #3's drift cannot recur
  • Re-generated after the D5 trims and the P6 / P7 / P9 / P18 proofread fixes
  • Each answer opens with a self-standing sentence, the shape an AI Overview quotes; «what is legal-grade automated time tracking?» already sits at 7.3
SoftwareApplication #software
featureList rebuilt as 12 time-tracking features; priceSpecification removed
Was SITE-WIDE LIST · REJECTED NODE
  • The 13-item site-wide featureList: AI Tools, E-Signature, Calendaring… on a time-tracking page
  • Offer.priceSpecification: Google's SoftwareApplication parser rejects it
Now
featureList12 time-tracking features, every line documented behaviour
not claimedautomatic (passive) time capture, because none exists
Offerskept; priceSpecification gone
Parked
What was not added, and why
  • A YouTube hero: no YouTube copy of the Time Tracking video exists, so Vimeo stays (unlike /legal-contact-management-software, which got one)
  • ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 and Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5: external citations not added yet
  • /maatdesk-for-gmail schema still says «track billable time directly from Gmail», which support.maatdesk.com does not document
  • Deliberate Omissions & Measurement — the «avoid» rows from the opportunity ranking · the claims the audit removed · and the exports that will judge this work
    DO NOT «FIX» THESE: each one is a decision with a reason, recorded so the next editor does not undo it
    Deliberately NOT targeted (section 7, «avoid» rows)
    • Attorney / lawyer billing software cluster: 2,760 searches, KD 18–36, CPC up to $97. Belongs to /legal-billing-software (block H), which is linked
    • billable hours software: 170 vol but KD 81
    • legal task management software: 260 / $96.50, belongs to /task-management-tool-for-attorneys
    • legal timeline / tracking / record keeping: 1,090 searches, belongs to case management
    • deadline tracking / lawyer calendar software: 230 searches, GSC 3 @ 29.3, belongs to /legal-calendaring-software
    • ai timekeeping / ai time tracking: 180 searches, KD 23–42. Only if an AI time-capture feature exists, and none does
    • time59 / clio / wisetime / lawbillity…: 22 competitor-brand navigational, 3,020 searches
    • request / call tracking, payroll, HR, CLE: 17 off-topic, 1,150 searches
    • automated timekeeping and billing software: the largest named GSC query (20 @ 69.7), not used as a phrase because no automatic capture exists
    Claims removed: negative deltas on purpose
    • manual & automatic timers 2 → 0
    • one-click time entry 2 → 1
    • automatic time capture 5 → 4, now said only where it is true
    • case & client based tracking 2 → 0
    • time logs / time reports 2 → 0
    • revenue capture 2 → 0
    • legal workflows / review workflows 3 → 0, which implied approval of time
    • legal professionals 1 → 0, the old H2
    Technical changes that carry no keyword
    • og:url relative → absolute
    • twitter:card summary → summary_large_image
    • Offer.priceSpecification removed
    • sitemap_video.xml: 404 thumbnail fixed, second entry added
    • Razor «@* SEO ‹date› — what. Why: … Source: … *@» comments above every edited block; the XML entity carries the same as an XML comment
    • Kept as is: article:published_time 2024-09-11 (the real first-publish date) · urlspanish="x-disabled"
    How to judge this work: GSC URL + query filters and a Semrush Positions export, 4–6 weeks after deploy NOT WORD COUNT
    MeasureNow (pre-rewrite window)What movement would mean
    «legal time tracking software»: GSC query filter9 impr @ 36.9 · 0 clicks · 1 USThe target and the depth test. Impressions rising from single digits are the first sign Google associates the URL with its term
    Semrush Positions export, exact URL4 of 183 gap keywords · head term — Any entry in the top 100 on the head cluster is new. It also confirms every «—» in the MD column
    Time-and-billing queries in GSC16 @ 56.8 · 20 @ 69.7 · 7 @ 64.7 · 5 @ 56.2The $94–$111 cluster: movement here is worth more per position than anywhere else on the page
    «what is legal-grade automated time tracking?»3 @ 7.3Already page 1; the definition card should hold or improve it
    Timekeeping rows (MD column)all —«timekeeping» went 0 → 18+ on the page; MyCase holds 1–6 on most
    «maatdesk legal task management software» on this URLpos 27 · GSC 1 @ 28Should leave this URL; a signal about /task-management-tool-for-attorneys, not this page
    Search Console → Enhancements—FAQ, Video ×2, Breadcrumb valid for this URL; the priceSpecification error gone; the video sitemap thumbnail resolving
    AND THE CAVEAT THAT APPLIES TO EVERY FIGURE ABOVE: all impression and position data was exported BEFORE the work (GSC 2026-06-28 → 2026-09-27, Semrush gap and bulk 2026-09-29). Nothing here is evidence the rewrite worked; it is the baseline it will be judged against. The improving monthly position (37.2 → 22.6) is long-tail noise, not progress on the head term.
    Source Index — search data, the page and its siblings, and the product documentation every claim was checked against · scan 2026-09-29, audits 2026-09-30
    Every figure in this report traces to one of the rows below · source codes [S1]–[S21] are the ones the change log cites
    A. Search and keyword data
    GSC-URLsources\legal-time-tracking-software\legal-time-tracking-software url\https___maatdesk.com_-Performance-on-Search-2026-09-29 (1)\. Page = this URL, last 3 months: 390 impr, 47 named queries (197 impr), 31.65, 0 clicks; Queries / Pages / Countries / Devices / Search appearance / Chart
    GSC-KW…\legal-time-tracking-software keyword\https___maatdesk.com_-Performance-on-Search-2026-09-29\. Query = «legal time tracking software»: 9 impr / 36.89 / 0 clicks (US: 1 @ 41)
    SR-GAP [S8]sources\legal-time-tracking-software\gap.keywords_2026-09-29T17_04_42.858Z.csv. 183 keywords, this URL vs clio.com/features/legal-time-expense-tracking/, mycase.com/blog/legal-billing/best-legal-timekeeping-software/, getharvest.com/legal-time-tracking-software. The main Semrush source: Vol / KD / CPC / INT / MD / Best comp
    SR-BULK [S8]legal-time-tracking-software-with-ri_bulk_us_2026-09-29_14-41-20.csv. 15 GSC-only queries requested, 10 returned; KD / Intent / SERP features for one only. Not returned: legal billing and time tracking software, automated timekeeping and billing software, matter-based time recording software for lawyers, what is legal-grade automated time tracking?, automated time capture legal industry
    Change loglegal-time-tracking-software-improvements.txt: the master table, the analysis and the dated change log this page is built from
    B. The page itself, and the siblings read or edited
    • Content/legal-time-tracking-software/En/articlemetas.cshtml: title, metas, OG / Twitter, canonical, SoftwareApplication (now + WebPage + BreadcrumbList)
    • Content/legal-time-tracking-software/En/article.cshtml: 268 visible words, 3 H2s, 6 cards, 5 FAQs, 5 images, 1 internal link, VideoObject + FAQPage. Now the 10-H2, 9-card, 17-FAQ, 2-video page
    • ServicePageSkin.cshtml (lines 23 / 71): H1 = @Model.GetName; briefintro renders under the H1 only when populated · App_Data/ServiceEntities.xml (lines 489–520): name, targeredkeyword, vimeoslideid 1157608277, briefintro (added), urlspanish="x-disabled"
    • Overlap checks: /legal-billing-software (owns the pure «billing software» cluster) · /blog-post/benefits-of-time-tracking-software (same topic; cannibalisation, medium) · [S14] templates: /legal-contact-management-software, /e-signature, /ai-tools, /legal-calendaring-software · [S15] /web-app (no native app) · [S16] /client-portal · [S17] /pricing + the cost blog post (time tracking in every plan) · [S18] /privacy-policy
    • [S20] the five screenshots in wwwroot/themes/maatdesk/images/services/time-tracking/ · [S21] internal-link audit, cannibalisation check, redundancy check and proofread, 2026-09-30
    C. Product documentation and primary sources THE CLAIMS POLICY
    [S1]support.maatdesk.com/getting-started-with-time-entries: timekeeper, formats, Save and Associate Time Entry, No Matter, Non-Billable / Non-Charge, statuses, edit and delete rules
    [S2]…/how-to-work-with-activity-categories: billing methods, rate order, permissions, expenses
    [S3]…/getting-started-with-billing: Quick Bill, Skip Approval Process, billed entries
    [S4] [S5] [S6]…/understanding-activities-module · understanding-reports-module (Activities Over Time / by Matter / by Contact, Productivity, PDF) · understanding-dashboard (Work recorded widget, My Tasks timekeeper)
    [S7]…/getting-started-with-contacts: client billing rates set on the contact
    [S10] [S11]Hero video: local transcript of «time_tracking_v1 (240p).mp4» (43 s, faster-whisper medium.en) · Vimeo oEmbed for 1157608277 (43 s, uploaded 2026-01-23)
    [S12] [S19]YouTube BigUt_oku38 (Activities Over Time, 28 s, 2026-09-02) · TJkThHPvZf8 (Expenses) and fRjXaMew8Ns (Offices, «a firm with several offices»)
    [S13]ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5 Fees: the one outbound citation
    Status — Done vs Open
    NOT COMMITTED as of the log (2026-09-30): «None of these changes is committed yet (git status: staged/modified)». Until the page ships, the measurement clock has not started. The baseline is the page as scanned on 2026-09-29: 268 words, a description promising to «guarantee the registration of billable time without losses», four images without alt and no «timekeeping» anywhere.
    Keyword table + scan + rewrite 2026-09-29 · link / redundancy / proofread audits 2026-09-30 · every change mirrored as a Razor comment at the point of the edit
    ✓ Done
    • ✓ [HIGH] Thin content: 268 → 4,165 words on the /legal-contact-management-software template; briefintro filled (was empty)
    • ✓ [HIGH] The four missing vocabularies: timekeeping, time and billing, time management and time recording, all now on the page; «lawyer» 0 → 24
    • ✓ [HIGH] JSON-LD graph: #software → #webpage → #breadcrumb + #video, #video-activities, #faq; isPartOf bare @id; priceSpecification removed
    • ✓ [HIGH] Undocumented claims removed: «Automatic Timers», the time-approval workflow, «guarantees … without losses»; no native app claimed
    • ✓ [MED] Branded FAQs replaced: 5 → 17, sized questions, schema identical to the page
    • ✓ [MED] Meta description: rewritten, 156 chars; title «for Law Firms», 53 chars
    • ✓ [MED] Images: 5 of 5 alts describe the screen; «case details client» gone; og:image / twitter:image set
    • ✓ [MED] VideoObject: real upload date, duration, transcript; second video added; 404 sitemap thumbnail fixed
    • ✓ [MED] Internal links: out 1 → 24 (15 pages), in 5 → 17; /maatdesk-for-gmail's «Automatically» claim reworded
    • ✓ [MED] Title Case cards: rewritten as sentences
    • ✓ [LOW] og:url absolute · [CHECK] automatic capture resolved: the timer is manual, so the page says so
    • ✓ Redundancy pass D1–D5 · proofread P1–P19 · Razor SEO comments on every edited block
    ⚠ Open
    • ⚠ NOT COMMITTEDthe only item that blocks every other item
    • ⚠ Feature-card body text is sentence case; the template and other feature pages Capitalise Every Word. Keep or align?
    • ⚠ /maatdesk-for-gmail schema still says «track billable time directly from Gmail», which is not documented
    • ⚠ External links not added yet: ABA Formal Opinion 93-379, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5
    • ⚠ Cannibalisation (medium): retitle /blog-post/benefits-of-time-tracking-software and change its schema keywords to target «benefits», not the head term
    • ⚠ BigUt_oku38 auto-captions mis-hear the brand («MyCase», «Clio», «My desk»); fix them in YouTube Studio
    • ⚠ Spanish version still disabled (urlspanish="x-disabled")
    • ⚠ Second Semrush bulk pull: SERP features for the core cluster, the 5 GSC queries pull #1 did not return, and the multi-word on-page terms; 46 rows still «n/d»
    • ⚠ «maatdesk legal task management software» ranks 27 here and on /legal-calendaring-software; /task-management-tool-for-attorneys does not win its own brand term
    TEST AFTER DEPLOY, in this order. Rich Results Test on the live URL: the graph parses, FAQ / Video ×2 / Breadcrumb eligible, no priceSpecification error. Search Console URL inspection → request indexing, then the video sitemap (the thumbnail must return 200). GSC query filter on «legal time tracking software» from the first full week after indexing; any rise from 9 impressions is the first signal. Semrush Positions export for the exact URL 4–6 weeks out: the baseline is 4 of 183 and nothing in the head cluster, so every entry is news.

    Standing instruction: every change made to this page is logged in legal-time-tracking-software-improvements.txt as a matter of course (the keyword table Was / Now and the dated change log with WHAT, WHY and SOURCE) and mirrored as a Razor @* SEO ‹date› — what. Why: … Source: … *@ comment at the point of the edit.