Direct answer: A zero-request parse of 20 cached contact pages: 15 contain a form, but only 3 link a privacy policy, 3 mention consent and 1 has a checkbox; only 2 (E02, E03) have form + privacy + consent together. Eight contact pages reference analytics. Contact pages do not fill the privacy gap seen on homepages.

Study 35 looked at homepages: 3 of 25 had a privacy link. A common explanation is “the entry point lives on the contact or form page”. This study takes the same sites' contact pages and tests that explanation.

20
cached contact pages
15
with a form
3
with a privacy link
3
with consent words
1
with a checkbox
2
with all three

Method: reuse the study-8 contact cache

Pages come from the 20 contact pages crawled in study 8 (`out/raw`); this study makes no network request. Each page is checked for a <form>, a link whose href points to a privacy policy, consent words (同意 / 已阅读 / 隐私政策), a checkbox, and common analytics scripts. Text signals only; no JavaScript and no compliance judgement.

SignalMatchBoundary
Form<formSubmittability not tested
Privacy linkhref containing privacy / yinsi / 隐私Target not checked
Consent words同意 / consent / 已阅读 / 隐私政策Keywords are not a consent flow
Checkboxinput type=checkboxRequired state not checked

Result: 15 forms, 3 privacy links

SignalPages (20)Note
Form15E01, E02, E03, E04, E06, E08, E11, E13, E14, E17, E19, E23, E26, E28, E29
Privacy link3E02, E03, E11 — all form pages
Consent words3E02, E03, E19
Checkbox1E03 only
Form + privacy + consent2E02, E03
Any analytics8Baidu 5, CNZZ 3, GTM 1 (overlapping)

Against homepages: the same three sites

LayerPagesPrivacy linkConsent wordsBoth
Homepages (study 35)25352
Contact pages (this study)20332

The contact-page privacy links are still E02, E03 and E11 — no additions; consent words drop from 5 to 3 (E19 appears on the contact page, while E04/E24/E29 do not). In this sample, “the privacy entry is on the contact page” finds no support, at least in static HTML.

Many forms, few consent checkboxes

Of 15 form pages, only one (E03) also has a checkbox; three have consent words, but E19 lacks a privacy link and E11 lacks consent wording. Only E02 and E03 combine form + privacy link + consent words.

This does not mean the other forms are non-compliant: consent may be handled by a runtime modal, a third-party script or a second confirmation at submit time, and the privacy link may sit outside the footer. It does mean static contact-page HTML is a poor place to confirm “notice before collection”.

What this means for acceptance

  1. Do not assume the entry is on the contact page. Only 3 of 15 form pages had a privacy link.
  2. Record form, link, consent and checkbox separately. Their hit rates differ and merging hides gaps.
  3. A checkbox is not valid consent. Required state, wording and withdrawal still need checking.
  4. Runtime behaviour needs rendering. Modals and second confirmations are not in static HTML.
  5. Read both layers together. When homepage and contact page both lack the entry, it is not misplaced — it is absent.

Limits

  • Cached, zero-request: contact pages are frozen at the study-8 crawl.
  • Regex: keywords can false-positive; links may sit in JavaScript or iframes.
  • No JavaScript: runtime consent popups cannot be confirmed.
  • No compliance judgement: signals only, not legality of processing.
  • 20-page pilot: no industry claim.

Data and reproduction

Anonymised data: equipment-contact-privacy-pilot-2026.csv (20 rows: sample_id, contact URL, status, form, privacy link, consent words, checkbox, analytics flags and combinations). The repository keeps docs/research/2026-11-contact-privacy-pilot.csv.

Parser: scripts/contact_privacy_probe.py; unit tests: scripts/test_contact_privacy_probe.py (10 tests, no network). Run:

python -m unittest scripts.test_contact_privacy_probe

Related: the homepage privacy and analytics pilot (25 pages), the contact-page details pilot (address, phone, map), and the contact-path pilot.

Sources and definitions

  1. Contact cache: 20 contact pages from study 8 (raw HTML kept off-repository).
  2. Signals: keyword/regex matches; no JavaScript execution and no compliance judgement.
  3. Scan: 2026-11-03, zero network requests.
About the author

Lingyi Information Official (delivery team) works on requirements, proposals and acceptance for corporate websites, brand and smart-manufacturing projects. This article records visible signals in cached contact pages only; it makes no claim about any site's compliance, rankings or traffic, and the 20-page sample is a pilot.

Notice comes before the form

Accept forms, privacy links, consent wording and checkboxes separately; runtime modals need a real pre-submit check.

Request a recheck plan