Real audits of real websites, anonymised, with the numbers.
Most of what breaks a website is invisible from the front page. These are the things we find when we actually look.
Fig. 01 — What qualifies as a note
01
Every note carries at least one figure taken from a real audit. “A lot of broken links” is not a finding. “18,047 links checked, 132 blocking defects” is.
The rule is enforced in the content schema, not in an editor's judgement: a note whose finding carries no quantity fails the build and does not publish.
02
Notes are written from live sites, described by industry and platform rather than by name — a live WordPress site in the events industry. A named teardown makes an enemy and adds nothing the reader needed.
Where a site is named, permission was given in writing and is recorded with the entry.
03
No opinion pieces, no roundups, no commentary on somebody else's launch. If there is no number behind it, it is commentary — and commentary belongs in the blog this site decided not to have.
Fig. 02 — What a note reports
| What was checked | The site, the method, and the date it was measured |
|---|---|
| What was found | The figures, exact. A number that moves is evidence it's real |
| Why it mattered | What the finding costs the business the site belongs to |
A note is what a site audit publishes. The audit itself is one of the things you can buy, on its own or as the first step of a rebuild.
Fig. 03 — Why the bar is set there
A note has to survive somebody checking it. That is the only reason one is worth reading, and the only reason writing more of them makes the argument stronger rather than longer.