Web page
Your web page
Paste your web page. Nothing to upload.
←web page
Make a product requirements document
Turn web pages into a product requirements document
People describe what is broken in public, at length, without being asked.
Free to try, no card. Your web page opens in Ancher.
Readable content, declutteredTitle, author, published dateOutbound links
Kept in parts
Every one of these stays separately addressable instead of collapsing into one block of text.
ProblemUsersScopeSuccess metrics
Product requirements document
The problem, the user, the scope, and how success gets measured.
Forum threads, review pages and support discussions contain the same problem described dozens of times by people who had no reason to be diplomatic. Ancher reads them together, so a requirement can cite how many separate pages raised it and link each one, and what people describe as their current workaround becomes the evidence rather than a guess about it.
The honest version
The workaround people describe is the requirement, stated more accurately than they could state it
Users ask for features and describe workarounds, and the workaround is the reliable half. When forty people explain the same manual process they run every week, that process is the spec. Reading full threads rather than headlines is what surfaces those descriptions, and each one keeps the page it came from.
One screen of one page, at reply 14, read two ways.Illustrative. The figure is invented; the gap it falls into is not.
I've just given up and do it manually every Monday, takes about but at least it works
Screenshot posted in the thread — not readThe specific never reaches the draft
Product requirements document
Screenshot posted in the thread
Spreadsheet, 3 tabs, colour-coded
from reply 14
Lands in the draft, with its timecode
- Each requirement cites how many separate pages raised it, with links to all of them.
- Described workarounds are captured as evidence, because they are more accurate than feature requests.
- Screenshots people post are captured, and they show the real workflow rather than the described one.
What comes out
Product requirements document, section by section
The problem, the user, the scope, and how success gets measured.
Problem
The problem as people described it, quoted rather than restated.
Users
Who is describing it, inferred only from what they said about their situation.
Scope
Requirements, each with the number of pages raising it and links.
Success metrics
What would have to change for the described workarounds to stop.
Open questions
What public discussion cannot tell you and needs real research.
Web-pages-to-PRD prompt
The link on its own gets a summary. This is the instruction that produces the 5 sections above, in that order, with the rules that keep them honest. Paste it with your web pages — in Ancher, or in whatever assistant you already use.
Write a product requirements document from these public discussions. Quote how people described the problem rather than restating it. Capture the workarounds they describe, including anything visible in posted screenshots, and treat those as the evidence. For each requirement, give the number of separate pages that raised it with links. Check dates so old-version complaints are marked. Put what public discussion cannot settle into open questions.
The detail, if you want it
How each part of a web page becomes a section
| From the web page | Into | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Many pages in one collection | Scope | A count of how many separate discussions raised a requirement is the only evidence public sources can offer, and it needs many pages. |
| Readable content, decluttered | Problem | The useful description is usually in the fourteenth reply, not the original post, so full threads have to be read. |
| Inline images | Problem | Screenshots posted in threads show the actual workaround, which is consistently uglier than the written description. |
| Outbound links | Open questions | What a thread links to shows which alternatives people already tried, which narrows what still needs research. |
| Title, author, published date | Users | A thread's date decides whether a complaint describes the current product or one that was fixed two versions ago. |
Everything Ancher keeps from a web page
Readable content, decluttered
Navigation, ads and cookie banners are dropped, so the collection holds the article rather than the page.
Title, author, published date
A date is what stops a three-year-old post from being read as current.
Outbound links
What a writer links to repeatedly reveals the sources they actually trust.
Inline images
Charts and diagrams in an article are usually the evidence the prose is describing.
Many pages in one collection
A single page is an anecdote; the value of this route appears once several are compared.
The four steps
- Add the web page. Paste any URL. Ancher fetches the readable content as clean markdown and keeps the title, author, publication date and outbound links — this is the route for articles, newsletters, forum threads and documentation.
- Nothing gets flattened. Readable content, decluttered, title, author, published date, outbound links, inline images, many pages in one collection stay separately addressable instead of collapsing into one block of text.
- Ask for a product requirements document. Ancher fills problem, users, scope, success metrics, open questions using the mapping above, not a generic summary pass.
- Check it before you use it. Every specific keeps a link back to where it came from in the web page, so a claim can be verified without reopening the source.
Where this goes wrong
- Public complaint skews negative and vocal. Satisfied users do not post, so frequency here is not frequency in your user base.
- Old threads describe old versions. Check the date before treating a complaint as current.
- Comment structure is lost on this route, so a reply saying this is wrong can read as an independent report of the same problem.
Questions people ask
Is public complaint good evidence for a spec?
It is good for what the problem is and poor for how common it is. Use it to write the problem statement precisely and to prioritise interviews, not to decide how many users are affected.
Why prefer workarounds to feature requests?
Because people describe what they do accurately and what they want imprecisely. A workaround described in detail is a specification of the gap; a requested feature is one person's guess at the solution.
What belongs in open questions?
Anything public discussion cannot settle — how widespread it is, what people would pay, whether the vocal minority is representative. Those need interviews, and the document should say so rather than implying the threads answered them.
Bring your own web pages
Everything you save lives in one workspace, so the product requirements document is built from your sources — not from a model's memory of the internet.
Open Ancher →Not a web page? The same product requirements document also comes from X thread, PDF, recording.