Hallpass Journal / Business attraction
A site-selector information checklist for your EDO website
Turn a broad website review into a list of missing answers, evidence, and assigned updates.
In this article
- Choose one location question for your EDO website review
- Copy this site-selector information review sheet
- Check the evidence behind workforce and property claims
- Test the handoff from your EDO page to partner information
- Write website findings as specific update assignments
- Prioritize EDO website fixes by the decision they affect
- Close the loop on your site-selector website checklist
To review an economic development website for site-selector information, follow a realistic location question through the site. Check whether the answer is findable, understandable, supported by current evidence, and connected to a useful next contact. Record the actual page and the missing step, then assign the fix to someone who can verify it.
Use the checklist below as a working review sheet for your EDO team. It is Hallpass's editorial review method, not a site-selector survey or a certification standard.
Our guide to communicating with site selectors explains the main information categories. This checklist helps you inspect the pages you already have and turn the findings into assignments.
Choose one location question for your EDO website review
Start with a question your staff receives or a plausible project your community is trying to serve.
For example: “Where can a manufacturing prospect find relevant workforce information and the person who can discuss its hiring needs?”
Write down the starting page and the audience. Then ask a colleague who does not maintain the site to follow the question without coaching.
Record what they actually do. If they reach an old brochure, a broken partner link, or a page with no relevant contact, save that destination and explain the gap.
Do not turn a small colleague review into a claim about all site selectors. Its purpose is to identify concrete issues your team can examine.
Copy this site-selector information review sheet
Use a separate row for each answer or important claim you review. Replace the prompts with the actual URL, evidence, and owner in your working copy.
| Information area | Check on the website | Record for follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Workforce | Can the reader identify relevant occupations, geography, reference period, and training contacts? | Page URL, source, missing definition, responsible partner |
| Sites and buildings | Can the reader identify the property and find current details and a verification contact? | Listing URL, confirmation date, unanswered property question |
| Utilities | Does the wording distinguish nearby infrastructure, assessed service, and planned improvements? | Provider, source date, qualification needing confirmation |
| Logistics | Is the claimed connection explained by a named route or relevant access information? | Route/source, what has been checked, next contact |
| Costs and incentives | Are conditions and the official program route visible beside the benefit? | Current guidance URL, administrator, unresolved eligibility wording |
| Project coordination | Is there a useful contact and an understandable first step? | Contact route, responsible team, process to confirm |
| Supporting stories | Does each example lead to information relevant to the reader's question? | Story URL, evidence link, missing next step |
Add these columns beside your findings: checked on, status, assigned to, next action, due date, verified by.
A useful status set is “confirmed,” “needs clarification,” “source unavailable,” and “not applicable to this review.” Record why a row is not applicable. An unavailable source is a finding to follow up, not permission to assume the claim is wrong.
Check the evidence behind workforce and property claims
Follow the source link rather than stopping at the presence of a number or badge.
For workforce content, confirm what the measure describes. The BLS OEWS FAQ describes occupational employment and wage estimates. A jobs estimate should not become a claim that the same number of people are available to recruit. The workforce communications guide explains how to keep those meanings clear.
For property content, identify the applicable record and its scope. Georgia's GRAD guidance, for example, names due-diligence categories and a review process for its certification. A badge should point to an identifiable program and current status, rather than substituting for the supporting information.
Use the site-readiness evidence guide when a property claim needs a more detailed review. Have the relevant provider, owner, program contact, or specialist verify technical statements.
The checklist organizes the communications work. It does not replace project-specific investigation.
Test the handoff from your EDO page to partner information
A page may provide a useful introduction and still leave the reader stranded at its next link.
Follow the workforce partner, property database, utility, and program links used by your chosen question. Confirm that each destination continues the task. A general partner homepage may need a short explanation or a more direct link to the relevant information.
Check the same route on a phone. Look at table scrolling, map labels, document readability, and contact information. Record the specific problem instead of writing only “mobile needs work.”
For contact forms, inspect the explanation and the fields. Use an approved test environment and test data for any submission check. Avoid creating invented project inquiries in the live office workflow.
Write website findings as specific update assignments
A finding should tell the next person what to investigate or change.
“Utilities page is weak” leaves the work undefined.
A more useful illustrative assignment is: “The property page says power is available, but the supporting provider assessment is not linked or dated. Ask the provider what wording it can confirm, record its qualifications, and revise the page after review.”
That assignment identifies the page, the uncertainty, the responsible source, and the publication step. It does not supply an unsupported capacity claim while waiting for the answer.
Use the same pattern for a workforce total with unclear geography, a closed incentive round, or a training link that leads nowhere.
Keep the public wording proportionate to what your team can substantiate. A clear question and contact can be more useful than an ambitious sentence the evidence does not support.
Prioritize EDO website fixes by the decision they affect
Review the findings with the people responsible for the information.
Begin with issues that could materially mislead a prospect or prevent a relevant inquiry from reaching the right person. Then address missing definitions, broken handoffs, and explanations that require unnecessary searching.
Some changes are small: a clearer link label, a visible source date, or the right contact. Others need a provider response, updated study, or program decision. Record that dependency instead of treating every issue as a copywriting task.
Choose a manageable first group of assignments and give each an owner and review date. Do not turn an initial inspection into an unresourced promise to rebuild the whole website.
Close the loop on your site-selector website checklist
After an update, repeat the original question from the same starting page.
Can your colleague now find the answer, explain what it establishes, identify the supporting source, and reach the correct next step? Record what changed and what remains unresolved.
Keep the completed review sheet. It gives the team a record of which information was checked and which partner owns the next update. Repeat the relevant checks when the underlying information changes.
The aim is a useful route from a location question to credible information and a real conversation.
If your EDO has information worth sharing but struggles to make that route clear, start a conversation with Hallpass about your website.