Between 22 and 27 September 2026 we published eight original page reviews, one for each of the eight sectors we work with: conveyancing solicitors, aesthetic clinics, TRT clinics, accountants, dentists, estate agents, financial advisers and private GP clinics. Each review took eight practices from public search results and recorded what their pages tell a buyer before they get in touch, such as who does the work, how a reader can check them and what it costs.
This page puts the eight reviews side by side. It adds no new research. Every figure in the table comes from a published review and its observation sheet, and links to that review. Where a review did not record something, the table says “not measured” rather than filling the gap.
One method, with differences that matter
All eight reviews followed the same basic method. We selected practices from public web searches, captured the pages reviewed with their capture times and SHA-256 hashes, and recorded a fixed set of features for each practice. Research and coding were assisted by AI and checked against the retained captures before publication. Each review says what “not found” means: we did not find the information on the pages reviewed, and it may appear elsewhere on the practice’s website.
The reviews also differ, and the differences limit any comparison between sectors:
- Dates. Conveyancing pages were captured on 22 September, aesthetic and TRT clinic pages on 23 September, and the other five on 27 September 2026.
- Places. Seven reviews took four practices associated with Leeds and four with Manchester (for conveyancing, Manchester or its wider area). The TRT review took eight providers from two searches for private testosterone treatment in the UK, not from two cities.
- Pages. The conveyancing review read one pricing page per firm, chosen because it was a pricing page. The aesthetic and TRT reviews read the home page, the main treatment page and, where linked, a price page. The other five read the page the search returned and, where it linked one, a fees, pricing or selling page.
- Features. The conveyancing review counted three features and described others in words. The others coded twelve to fifteen features each, and the features differ by sector because the buyer’s question differs.
- Browser checks. The dentist, estate agent, financial adviser and private GP reviews also opened every page in a browser with its scripts running. The other four coded the returned page code only.
- Names. The conveyancing review names the firms and their pages. The other seven do not name the practices.
The eight reviews side by side
Each cell gives the count the review published, out of eight, in the review’s own terms. Similar column headings do not mean identical measures: the notes in each cell say what was counted. Where a review counted a registration number and a register link together, the register column says so. “Not measured” means the review did not record that feature as a count.
| Sector and review | The buyer’s question | Named person | Checkable register or regulator link | Price or fee | Visible date | The review’s headline count |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conveyancing solicitors 22 September 2026 | What does the fee cover, which costs might change, and who handles the transaction? | Not measured | Not measured | 8 of 8 gave legal-fee figures (pages chosen because they were pricing pages) | Not measured | 7 of 8 quantified at least one additional charge |
| Aesthetic clinics 23 September 2026 | Who will treat me, who decides it is suitable, what does it cost and what could go wrong? | 6 of 8 named a practitioner who treats patients (two by first name only) | 0 of 8 showed a register number or a register link (counted together) | 7 of 8 published at least one toxin price | 0 of 8 treatment pages showed a published or reviewed date | 6 of 8 named a practitioner who treats patients |
| TRT clinics 23 September 2026 | Which tests do I need, who decides, what does it cost and how will I be monitored? | 8 of 8 named a clinician | 4 of 8 showed a treating clinician’s register number or a link to a register entry (counted together) | 7 of 8 set out prices for more than one stage | Not measured | 8 of 8 described blood tests before treatment |
| Accountants 27 September 2026 | Which qualified accountant can do my year-end accounts and company tax, and what will it cost? | 1 of 8 named an accountant alongside a qualification | 0 of 8 showed a visible link to a professional body directory entry | 4 of 8 published a price for a limited company service (the search asked for fixed fees) | 1 of 8 carried a date | 4 of 8 published a price for a limited company service |
| Dentists (implants) 27 September 2026 | Which dentist near me can fit an implant, who would do it, and what will it cost? | 7 of 8 named a dentist | 1 of 8 linked to a dentist’s GDC register entry; 2 of 8 linked to their own CQC page in the page code (1 more in a browser) | 7 of 8 published an implant price | 2 of 8 carried a visible date | 7 of 8 published a price for implant treatment |
| Estate agents 27 September 2026 | Which estate agent should sell my home, what will they charge, what does that include and who will handle the sale? | 5 of 8 named a person with a job title (in one, lettings roles only) | 0 of 8 linked to the agency’s own entry or a scheme’s register page; 5 of 8 linked to a redress scheme’s home page | 1 of 8 stated a fee for selling a home | 0 of 8 carried a visible date | 1 of 8 stated a fee for selling a home |
| Financial advisers 27 September 2026 | Which adviser near me could advise me on my pension, are they regulated, and what will the advice cost? | 3 of 8 named an adviser | 0 of 8 linked to their own entry on the FCA register; 7 of 8 showed their own firm reference number | 4 of 8 gave a figure for an advice fee | 0 of 8 carried a visible date | 7 of 8 showed their own FCA firm reference number |
| Private GP clinics 27 September 2026 | Who would see me, are they registered, and what does a first appointment cost? | 4 of 8 named a doctor in the page code (2 more only once scripts ran) | 0 of 8 linked to a doctor’s GMC register entry; 1 of 8 linked to the CQC page for its own location | 5 of 8 published a price for a GP appointment | 2 of 8 carried a visible date | 5 of 8 published a price for a GP appointment |
The headline count is the first figure each review gives in its summary of findings. For the aesthetic clinic review, the treatment page was the only page checked for a date. Each review’s observation sheet (CSV) gives every recorded feature for each practice; the link is on each review page.
What the pattern means for a practice
The reviews asked different questions of different pages, so the counts are not a league table and they do not show that one sector does better than another. Read within each review, three patterns recur.
1. The claim is often there; the link to check it rarely is
Where a review counted both a claim and a way to check it, the claim was more common. Seven of the eight financial advice firms showed their own FCA firm reference number, and none linked to their own entry on the FCA register. Seven of the eight dental practices named a dentist, and one linked to a dentist’s GDC register entry. In the five reviews that counted a link to a person’s or a firm’s own entry on a register or directory (accountants, dentists, estate agents, financial advisers and private GP clinics), no review found one at more than one practice in eight. Links to a regulator’s page for the practice itself were counted separately: two of the eight dental practices linked to their own CQC page in the page code, and one of the eight private GP clinics linked to the CQC page for its own location.
For a practice, the step is small: put the registration number beside the name and make it a link to the entry. A reader can then check it without searching, and an AI system that reads the page finds the name, the number and the public record together.
2. Who does the work, and what it costs, depend on the question
The named-person and price counts differ a great deal between the reviews, but so do the measures. One review counted a named clinician, another an accountant named alongside a qualification, another an adviser. Some counted a single price, the TRT review counted prices for more than one stage, and the conveyancing review read pages chosen because they were pricing pages. The accountancy search also asked for fixed fees, which that review says is likely to raise its price count. The differences say more about each review’s question and selection than about any sector.
For a practice, the useful question is whether its own page answers the buyer’s question in its own sector: who would do the work, what they are qualified as, and what the service costs or how the price is worked out, with what it covers.
3. Pages rarely carry a visible date
Six reviews recorded whether a page showed a visible date for its content. None of the six found one at more than two practices in eight. Where the dental and private GP reviews did find one, the clearest named the clinician who reviewed the page and gave the review date.
For a practice, a review date and the name of the person who approved the facts tell a reader, and an AI system, how current a price or a policy statement is.
These are observations about the pages reviewed, not findings about any practice’s regulatory position. Information missing from a reviewed page may appear elsewhere on the practice’s website.
How to use this
Each review includes a free worksheet for practices in that sector. Open your own service page and your fees page, pick the worksheet for your sector and work through the questions. Record the evidence you find on the page, the person responsible and the next change. The worksheets are content-review aids, not regulatory checklists or professional advice; have a responsible person in your practice approve the facts before publication.
- Conveyancing solicitors: 12-question worksheet (CSV)
- Aesthetic clinics: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
- TRT clinics: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
- Accountants: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
- Dentists: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
- Estate agents: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
- Financial advisers: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
- Private GP clinics: 10-question worksheet (CSV)
How this relates to AI visibility
An AI assistant answering a buyer’s question can only repeat what it can find and connect. A named person, a registration number linked to the public record, a price with what it covers and a review date give it specific facts it can check against other sources. These checks identify information a reader can verify; they do not show whether a page is cited in AI answers. Our measurement guide explains how to keep evidence from AI answers separate from a page review.
Method, boundaries and corrections
This page adds no new captures or coding. On 27 September 2026 we recomputed every figure in the table from the eight published observation sheets and matched each one to the wording of its live review page; all matched. Where a review recorded a feature only in words, as with the conveyancing review’s information about people, we left the cell as “not measured” rather than counting it ourselves. Each review’s own method section sets out how its practices were selected, any replacements, the coding and any corrections.
Each review describes the pages of eight practices chosen from search results, which favour practices that are already easy to find. The samples are purposive, not random, and small. Counts from different reviews measure different features on different kinds of page, captured on different dates, so they should not be added together or ranked. A recorded feature does not establish its accuracy or completeness, and nothing here determines whether any practice meets its regulator’s rules or any legal requirement.
Send specific corrections, with the page address and passage, to hello@answari.co.uk. Later corrections will be dated here.