Case study
We audited our own page. It hurt.
We pointed fixlist at page.screela.com and it gave us 64 — trust "nearly absent." So we did what we tell customers to do: worked the list, re-ran, repeated. Three rounds later, 75. Every report below is raw and unedited.
Raw, unedited reports: round 1 — before (64) · round 2 (67) · round 3 (70) · final (75)
What it caught
16 findings. The gist, in its own words:
"The hero nails the 5-second test… but trust is nearly absent: zero testimonials, logos, or numbers, which is fatal for a paid product… the persuasion arc skips proof entirely before asking for money."
What we changed
Visitors had to imagine what they were buying. Now a real annotated report screen sits right there — score, chips and all.
Added a proof section ahead of pricing. It opens with this audit — our own, unflattering.
Darkened every gray until the body copy passed contrast. Readability 62 → 82.
The re-run called ours awkward and suggested a better line. We shipped its exact words.
Stopped cataloguing our own sins and opened with the result instead.
What moved
| Score | Before | After | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 64 | 75 | +11 |
| Trust | 28 | 58 | +30 |
| Readability | 62 | 82 | +20 |
| Call to action | 68 | 80 | +12 |
| First impression | 72 | 78 | +6 |
| Hierarchy | 70 | 74 | +4 |
| SEO | 88 | 88 | ±0 |
| Mobile | 75 | 75 | ±0 |
What it still won't give us
The re-run didn't go easy. It kept "no real social proof" as critical and noted that publishing your own audit "is clever but not third-party proof." Fair — testimonials can't be shipped in a commit. That's the whole point: the rubric doesn't care whose page it is.