Turn vague client website change requests into dev-ready tickets

"Can you just make the button pop more?" If you build or maintain websites for a living, you've received a version of this request. It's vague, it's missing every detail you actually need, and answering it takes three emails and a screenshot you had to ask for twice.

The problem isn't your client. The problem is the gap between how a non-technical person experiences a website and how a developer fixes one.

Why the usual tools make it worse

Most feedback widgets just forward the complaint. The raw text lands in your inbox or a ticket, and now you are the one doing the translation work: Which page? Which button? What browser? What did the console say? Is this the same thing Sarah reported last week?

That translation is real, unpaid labor — and it happens on every single request.

What a dev-ready ticket actually contains

A ticket you can act on without a back-and-forth needs, at minimum:

• The exact element and page URL the request is about
• A plain-language spec of the desired change
• Reproduction steps and the browser/device context
• Console logs and network errors from the moment it happened
• A masked session replay so you can see what the user saw
• A check that it isn't a duplicate of an existing request

Gathering all of that by hand, per request, is why small changes feel expensive.

Let the AI do the interview

The better model: the client points at the thing they want changed and says what they want, in their own words. Then an AI interviews them the way a senior developer would — asking the one or two clarifying questions that turn "make it pop" into "increase the primary CTA's contrast and size on the pricing page."

The client stays in their comfort zone. You get a complete, deduplicated ticket with the replay, the logs, and the spec already attached — and the client automatically gets told when the fix ships.

That's the whole point of SiteUpdate: vague request in, dev-ready ticket out, and the loop closes itself.