I’m building Seine - lead intelligence based on real website problems, not generic prospect lists
I’m building Seine, a lead intelligence tool for website care.
The idea came from a pretty simple problem: most outreach starts with a list of businesses, but not with a real reason to contact them.
I wanted to reverse that.
Seine looks at public business websites, finds practical issues, and tries to work out whether any of them are actually worth reaching out about.
That can be things like broken CTAs, contact or booking problems, rendering issues, usability friction, or other problems that affect trust, enquiries, bookings, or the customer journey.
The part I’m spending most of my time on is avoiding weak leads.
Finding an issue is easy. Deciding whether it is real, relevant, reproducible, and commercially meaningful is much harder.
So Seine collects evidence, classifies the issue, and only surfaces the stronger cases.
The goal is to make outreach more specific and useful.
Instead of:
“We help businesses improve their websites.”
Something closer to:
“We found this specific problem on your website, and here is why it may be affecting customers.”
Seine is currently in alpha, and I’m still improving the discovery, QA, evidence, and lead qualification parts.
I’d be interested to hear from anyone working in website services, CRO, QA, agencies, or lead generation.
Do you think having a real website issue before outreach would materially improve response quality?
The emphasis on evidence and reproducibility is the interesting bit here. Plenty of tools can flag a broken CTA, but deciding whether it actually matters to the business is a much harder problem.
Feels like Seine could be pulling in a lot more organic traffic than it is right now. In alpha, that could be especially useful for seeing which kinds of website problems people actually care enough to act on.
Have you found any issue types that consistently turn into much better leads than the others?
Yes — definitely.
The strongest ones are the problems that directly block a customer from doing something valuable: booking an appointment, submitting a contact form, requesting a quote, clicking an important CTA, or completing another key step in the customer journey.
Those are very different from generic technical warnings because the business impact is obvious. If a potential customer is trying to book and the booking flow is broken, that is not a theoretical issue — the business can lose that customer right there.
That distinction has become a much bigger part of Seine in the new version. I’m deliberately moving away from “find as many website problems as possible” and focusing much more heavily on issues that can genuinely interfere with conversion.
The new version is actually being built around that idea.
This comment was deleted 7 days ago
The strongest part is the distinction between finding an issue and determining whether it is commercially meaningful. That qualification layer is what makes this more than another website-audit tool.
Exactly. That distinction became one of the most important parts of Seine for me.
Finding a technical issue is relatively easy. The harder part is deciding whether it actually creates friction for a real customer or affects the business in a meaningful way.
I don’t want Seine to produce long audit reports full of harmless warnings. The goal is to surface fewer issues, but make sure they are worth someone’s attention.
That distinction is interesting. I’d be interested in hearing how you’re seeing that qualification play out with early users — would you be open to sharing the best email to reach you on?
If you have any questions, it's better to write directly to Telegram - @chinitel
topbike-spb@yandex com
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.