Webvidence
Find local businesses, check their online presence, and prep
I have been continuing to work on Webvidence, a prospect research and outreach workflow for independent web designers.
The original reason I built it was pretty simple. I was spending too much time searching Google, opening local business websites one at a time, deciding whether anybody was worth contacting, writing messages, and keeping track of follow-ups.
The app now handles a good part of that workflow.
A user can search a local market, review the businesses and their websites, see which ones may be worth looking at first, prepare outreach, confirm what they sent, and keep up with what needs attention next.
It does not mass-send anything.
I am starting to see some users return and use the product on multiple days, which is one of the better signs I have had so far. At the same time, I am trying not to confuse recurring usage with full business validation. I still need more people using the whole workflow and reporting whether it actually helps them get replies or work.
One of the latest updates came from a user who found several businesses marked as having no website when the website simply was not connected to the Google listing.
They were right to call it out.
Webvidence now says when no website is linked on Google instead of claiming one does not exist. The user can also add or correct the website and run a fresh analysis.
That kind of feedback is exactly what I need more of.
I think Webvidence could genuinely help solo freelancers spend less time digging and make better decisions about who they contact. Now I need more active users willing to put it through a real prospecting routine and tell me where it holds up and where it does not.
I got some direct feedback from a Webvidence user this week.
They said finding businesses faster was useful, but the app had marked several businesses as having no website when they actually did. The website just was not connected to the Google business listing.
That is a pretty serious trust problem.
Webvidence was treating “Google did not return a website” too much like “this business does not have a website.” Those are not the same thing, and once a user catches that a few times, the audit, recommendation, and outreach around that business all become questionable.
So I changed it.
The app now says “No website linked on Google” instead of claiming no website exists. Users can add or correct a business website directly from the lead page, and Webvidence will run a fresh analysis against the corrected address.
I also reduced the recommendation boost that came from a missing Google website. A missing field on a business listing should not automatically push somebody to the top of the prospect list.
If the same business appears again in another search, the user-corrected website is preserved instead of being replaced by the incomplete Google data.
This was not the most exciting feature to build, but it was probably more important than adding another outreach tool.
The search side only works if users can trust the business information underneath it.
The next step will probably be a secondary website lookup for businesses where Google does not provide one, but I wanted the manual correction and honest wording live first instead of pretending the automatic data was more complete than it really was.
I have been looking closely at other products around website audits, local-business research, and outreach.
The obvious direction for Webvidence would be to keep increasing the numbers.
More businesses per search. More website audits. More generated emails. Mailbox connections. Automatic follow-ups. Bigger sending limits.
Those features are easy to advertise, but they are not really the reason I built it.
I was spending hours searching through Google, opening local business websites one at a time, trying to decide which businesses were active, whether there was a real opportunity, what I should say, and who needed a follow-up.
The research was repetitive, but the final decision was not.
A business with the worst website in town may have no interest in replacing it. Another business with a passable website may be actively promoting a new service and have a much clearer reason to invest.
The latest Webvidence updates try to account for that.
It now recommends businesses to review first instead of treating every result equally. The outreach defaults to starting a normal conversation rather than immediately pointing out website problems. Users confirm what they actually sent, follow-ups are scheduled, daily progress stays small, and outcomes can be recorded without opening a complicated CRM.
Nothing is automatically sent.
I am trying to build something between doing everything manually and handing the whole process to a cold-email machine.
The current product still needs more proof. Search activation has been decent, but sending and returning usage are the numbers I care about now. I also added a feedback form so users can report whether they contacted anyone, received replies, saved time, or got actual work.
The next part I want to solve is what happens after the first reply. Not a permanent AI chatbot, just a focused way to help the freelancer understand what the business said and decide whether to ask another question, introduce the service, follow up later, or leave it alone.
I think the audit is useful, but the judgment around the audit may be the real product.
I’ve been working on a pretty big Webvidence update, but the goal was not to keep adding features just for the sake of it.
The focus is making outreach feel more natural and giving freelancers a clearer path from finding a business to deciding what to do next.
Webvidence now puts more emphasis on:
Finding businesses that are actually worth reviewing.
Choosing whether to start a normal conversation, mention a real website finding, or follow up.
Keeping conversation-first outreach as the default instead of immediately turning every lead into a website pitch.
Recording replies and helping decide whether to ask another question, introduce a service, follow up later, or leave it alone.
Showing one clear next step instead of covering every screen with buttons, scores, and CRM controls.
I also went back through the interface and tightened the desktop and mobile experience so the workflow feels like one product instead of several tools stacked together.
The direction is becoming clearer.
Webvidence is not supposed to be a mass outreach bot or a giant lead database. It is meant to help independent web designers research local businesses, make better decisions, and have better conversations while staying in control of what gets sent.
That is what I’m focused on now.
I’ve been looking at more tools in the same general space as Webvidence, and most of them seem to follow the same pattern.
Find a huge list of businesses, scan their websites, point out what is wrong, generate a cold email, then try to send as many as possible.
There is obviously a market for that, but it is not really the problem I was trying to solve.
I could already find businesses on Google. What took forever was opening them one at a time, checking whether they were still active, looking through their website, figuring out whether there was any real opportunity, writing a message, and then trying to remember who needed a follow-up.
The business with the worst website is not always the best prospect either. They may already have all the work they want. They may live completely on referrals. They may not care about growing. They may have ignored ten other web designers who opened with the same website audit pitch.
That is why I have kept Webvidence more focused on research and judgment than volume.
It finds local businesses, checks their websites and online presence, helps narrow the results down to the ones that may actually be worth reviewing, and prepares outreach without automatically sending anything.
The freelancer still decides who to contact, edits the message, chooses the channel, and handles the conversation themselves.
I am also moving the outreach side away from immediately saying, “I looked at your website and noticed a few things.”
Instead, the idea is to notice something real about the business, ask a normal question, learn what they are actually trying to grow, and only bring up the website when there is a genuine reason to.
I know that makes it less impressive than tools claiming thousands of audits and emails at once, but I think it is closer to the real problem for solo freelancers.
Do people doing their own outreach actually want more volume, or do they need more help deciding who is worth their time and what to say?
I have spent a lot of time doing outreach for my own small web design business. One lesson kept coming up: Personalized outreach can still feel completely generic.
“I looked at your website.”
“I noticed some SEO problems.”
“Would you like a free audit?”
The business name and website findings might be accurate, but the owner still sees the pitch coming. I started getting more normal replies when I opened with one specific observation and one genuine question about the business. The goal was not to hide a pitch. It was to stop assuming every business had the same problem.
Sometimes the conversation revealed a real need. Sometimes it revealed that the business was already booked, did not want more leads, or was not a fit. I have now packaged that process into a small custom service for freelance web designers.
I review their current outreach, offer, pricing, target businesses, natural writing style, common prospect replies, and sales process. Then I build them a conversation-first outreach system with openers, follow-up questions, pitch transitions, objection responses, and custom AI instructions.
I decided to test it as a $149 service before turning it into a workshop, course, or larger Webvidence feature.
The immediate goal is five beta clients and enough real feedback to see whether people will pay for the method itself.
I’m a freelance web developer out of Amity, Arkansas, and one of the parts of the work I never liked was digging for businesses to contact.
I would go through Google, Facebook pages, old websites, and “I need a website” posts, then try to keep notes on who looked worth talking to.
A lot of the time, ten other developers had already jumped on the public posts before I ever saw them.
So I built Webvidence.
You choose a type of business and an area. It finds local businesses, gives you a rundown on their website and online presence, and helps sort out which ones may actually be worth contacting.
It can also draft outreach using the things it found, but it does not automatically send anything. The user still reviews the message and decides who to contact.
I launched an early version about five days ago. Excluding my own admin and test accounts:
40 people signed up
26 ran a search
13 generated outreach
4 marked a message sent
5 returned on another day
One heavy tester was responsible for most of the confirmed sends, so I’m not pretending I have product-market fit or anything close to it.
The useful part was seeing where people stopped.
Most people understood the search. The bigger drop happened after the results loaded. They had businesses in front of them, but they still had to decide who to contact, write the message, send it, come back, update the status, and remember the follow-up.
I have been reworking that flow around less bookkeeping:
Webvidence now recommends the best three places to start.
It explains the reason in normal language instead of technical audit terms.
After a message is sent, the next recommended lead is ready.
Contact dates and follow-ups are organized automatically after one confirmation.
The mobile layout is built around one clear next action at a time.
It is still early, but it is starting to feel like something I can actually use for a full outreach session rather than just a lead list.
I’d especially appreciate feedback from freelancers who find their own clients. Does the search-to-outreach flow make sense, and what would still stop you from using it regularly?
Webvidence is live with a free plan:
https://www.webvidence.app/?utm_source=indiehackers&utm_medium=launch_post&utm_campaign=first_launch
-
1
I like that you're paying attention to where people stop making decisions rather than assuming the lead generation itself is the bottleneck.
I'll be interested to see which recommendation users consistently act on first. Those patterns will probably reveal whether the product is really helping people find better leads, reduce decision fatigue, or maintain momentum throughout the outreach process.
-
1
That’s exactly what I’m watching next.
Right now I’m tracking which of the three recommendations gets opened first, which ones turn into a draft, and which ones actually get marked sent. My guess is the biggest win will be reducing decision fatigue, but the data may show that certain kinds of findings consistently lead to action.
I’m trying not to assume the highest scoring lead is automatically the best one. A business with a clear issue, recent activity, and an easy way to contact may be more useful than one with a technically worse site.
-
1
Appreciate the context.
The distinction between finding better leads and helping people decide what to act on is the interesting part here.
Would be good to discuss what you're seeing from those signals in more detail.
What's the best email to reach you on?
-
-
Comment