Feedback tool URL slugs: what every vendor builds a page for

Nine thousand four hundred and thirty two distinct page addresses, taken from the sitemaps of sixty three vendors in this category and sorted by what kind of page each one is.

The number that matters is not the total. It is that 8,733 of those 9,432 addresses are published by exactly one vendor, and only 304 are published by three or more.

So this category has a very small shared vocabulary and an enormous private one, and most of the private half is one company's page template counted many times.

Which pages does the whole category agree on?

Three hundred and four addresses, and the largest single group of them is integrations.

Glossary is the largest group by count and the least interesting, because a definition page can be written by anybody about anything and costs nothing to publish. The integration group is the interesting one, because an integration page is a claim about software that exists.

Which integrations does this category build a page for?

Slack, then Jira, then Intercom and Zapier.

This is the clearest consensus in the whole dataset, and it is worth being blunt about what it means for VoteFirst. VoteFirst has none of them. No Slack app, no Zapier listing, no outgoing webhooks and nothing that writes an issue into a tracker. The integrations page leads with those absences rather than burying them, and this table is the measured version of why that page exists.

If a Slack notification or a Jira sync is the reason you are shopping, twenty five and twenty four vendors respectively publish a page saying they do it, and VoteFirst is not among them.

Which competitors does everybody write about?

Canny and UserVoice, tied at twenty vendors each.

The comparison side is thinner and more concentrated. The most written head to head in the category is Canny against Productboard, published by eleven vendors, followed by Canny against UserVoice at eight.

That tells you where the competitive attention sits, and it also tells you how crowded those two addresses are. Eleven vendors writing the same comparison is eleven pages a reader can choose between, which is a different proposition from a comparison nobody else has written.

What does it mean that 8,733 addresses are unique to one vendor?

That most of what this category publishes is not a shared map of the subject. It is each company's own template, run over its own list.

One vendor with a glossary of four hundred terms produces four hundred addresses that nobody else has. That is not four hundred pieces of consensus, it is one decision applied four hundred times.

The practical reading is that a page's existence elsewhere is weak evidence that it is worth building. A page thirty vendors publish is a category expectation. A page one vendor publishes is one company's content calendar, and copying it copies the calendar rather than the reasoning.

What is in the file?

Four columns and 9,432 rows: what kind of page it is, the address slug, how many vendors publish it, and which vendors those are.

Take the file. It may be copied, quoted and used commercially with no attribution and no link back.

None of it needs attribution. If you would rather point at it than copy it, the address is https://votefirst.app/en/data/feedback-tool-url-slugs and the sitemaps were read on 13 September 2026.

How was it built and where does it stop?

From the vendors' own sitemaps, followed up to three hundred sitemap files per domain, then each address reduced to its final slug and sorted into a kind by the path it sits under.

Two limits worth stating. A sitemap is what a vendor chose to list, so a page that exists and is not in the sitemap is not here. And the sorting into kinds is done by path, so a vendor who files comparison pages under /blog/ has those pages counted as blog rather than comparison.

Sixty three domains produced usable sitemaps. The page counts per vendor, taken twice two days apart, are the companion file, and the headings inside those pages are the third.