Direct answer: a static check of the same 25 homepages found ICP filing signals on 21 (a filing number or a link to the MIIT filing system), public-security filing on only 4, a privacy-policy link on 5, a copyright year on 16, a business-licence mention on 7 and a sitemap link on 8; a full company name appears on 23. ICP is close to standard; public-security filing and privacy entry points are the clear gaps.
Method: reuse the same homepage HTML, parse statically
The 25 homepage HTML files fetched on 2026-11-10 at 11:40 (the same batch as the click-to-call check) were parsed locally with no new requests and no JavaScript. ICP numbers match “province abbreviation + ICP备 + digits + 号”, and a link to beian.miit.gov.cn is recorded separately; public-security filing matches a 公网安备 number or the filing-platform domain; privacy and sitemap are read from anchor text; the copyright year is any 20xx within 120 characters after ©/版权/Copyright; the licence is “营业执照/统一社会信用代码”; the company name is a Chinese legal-entity suffix.
The scope is the whole HTML, not the footer only. That covers footers, floating bars and about-page entries, but “present” does not mean “prominent in the footer”.
Result: ICP is nearly standard, public-security filing and privacy are the gaps
| Signal | Hits | Of 25 | Nature |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICP filing number | 16 | 64% | Legal duty (commercial/non-commercial filing) |
| Link to the MIIT filing system | 19 | 76% | Read together with the number |
| Either ICP signal | 21 | 84% | Legal duty |
| Public-security filing | 4 | 16% | Legal duty (within 30 days) |
| Privacy-policy link | 5 | 20% | Common home of the notice duty |
| Copyright year | 16 | 64% | Trust/maintenance signal |
| Business licence or credit code | 7 | 28% | Mandatory for e-commerce, trust signal otherwise |
| Sitemap link | 8 | 32% | Usability/crawl signal |
| Full company name | 23 | 92% | Entity identification |
ICP at 21 of 25 shows filing is common knowledge in this batch; the real gaps are public-security filing at 4 and privacy links at 5. The four public-security pages are E01, E06, E11 and E30; the five privacy links are E02, E03, E11, E19 and E29. Only E11 has both.
Result 2: the four pages with no ICP signal
Four of the 25 homepages show neither an ICP number nor a link to the MIIT system (E04, E13, E16, E27). That is not proof of missing filing — the number may live in an image, a script or unrendered content — but the static HTML gives neither a visitor nor a crawler a verifiable filing signal, which affects the judgement of whether this is an accountable long-term entity.
Last screen at 390px: privacy links on 6 of 25, 13-20px tall
On 2026-11-10 between 14:45 and 14:52 we reopened the same 25 homepages at 390x844 with headless Chrome, scrolled to the bottom and observed only the final screen, counting elements visible in it. These are rendered results, not the 11:40 desktop-HTML parse above (different time, template and visibility rule), so the two denominators are not merged.
Result: the last screen shows an ICP filing text or link on 19 of 25, public-security filing on 4, a privacy link on 6, the full company name on 18 and a copyright year on 15. All six privacy links are 13-20px tall (below the 24px WCAG 2.5.8 minimum) at 11.4-14px font size; ICP text is 12-16px, with seven pages at 13px or below.
| Signal | Visible on last screen | Note |
|---|---|---|
| ICP filing text or link | 19 / 25 | 12-16px font |
| Public-security filing | 4 / 25 | Still one of the lowest |
| Privacy link | 6 / 25 | 13-20px tall, all <24px |
| Full company name | 18 / 25 | Entity identification mostly visible |
| Copyright year | 15 / 25 | — |
| Page about one screen tall | 6 / 25 | E01, E04, E13, E16, E26, E29 |
Six homepages are about one viewport tall at 390px, so scrolling to the bottom lands on the same screen; their last-screen figures are still valid, but there is no long-scroll footer problem. Ten homepages need more than five screens to reach the bottom, the longest being E20 at 11.4.
How to read it: filing and entity details are mostly visible on the last screen (19/25 and 18/25), but only six privacy entries exist and every one is shorter than 24px; 11.4-14px text is small on a phone. An entry that is present but hard to tap and read is not much better than one that is absent.
Difference from the static pass: E18 shows a privacy link in the mobile render but had none in the 11:40 desktop HTML; some sites drop or rewrite the footer in their mobile template. This section only describes what the mobile render actually shows; it does not decide which version is correct and does not overturn the 21/25 static result above.
Legal duty versus trust signal
| Item | Who is bound | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| ICP filing | Sites providing internet information services in mainland China | Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services, Art. 4 |
| Public-security filing | Networked organisations | Measures for the Security Protection of Computer Information Networks Connected to the International Network |
| Privacy notice | Personal-information processors | Personal Information Protection Law, Art. 17 |
| Business-licence display | E-commerce operators | E-commerce Law, Art. 15 |
| Copyright year / sitemap | No mandate | Trust and usability signals |
Keeping mandatory items separate from trust items keeps acceptance honest: missing ICP or public-security filing is a compliance risk, a missing privacy entry is a notice and trust risk, the licence is not the same duty for an ordinary corporate site, and a copyright year cannot be used to infer freshness.
Five acceptance actions
- Close the public-security gap first. File within the 30-day window and put the 公网安备 number and platform link in the footer.
- Show the ICP number and link together. A number without a link, or a link without a number, costs the visitor an extra step.
- Put the privacy entry where it can be seen. A fixed footer link plus one beside the form; a pop-up or image is invisible to the static layer and crawlers.
- Group the entity details. Company name, address, phone and filing numbers in one footer block instead of scattering them across about and contact pages.
- Update the copyright year annually. It is a maintenance signal, not freshness evidence; a stale year suggests the site stopped being maintained.
Self-check: paste HTML and test nine signals
Paste page HTML below; the tool checks ICP, public-security filing, the privacy link, copyright year, business licence, sitemap and company name in the browser with the same rules as this article. Nothing is uploaded and no network request is made; results can be exported as CSV.
Not checked yet.
Running built-in self-test…
The checker only matches strings and anchor text; it does not query the filing systems or verify that a number matches the entity. The rules mirror this article, but a single page is not a whole-site compliance verdict.
Limits
- Whole page, not footer: a signal may appear anywhere; “present” is not “prominent”.
- Static text: filing numbers and privacy links injected by images, canvas or JavaScript are invisible; five privacy links is a lower bound.
- No verification: numbers were not checked against the filing systems to confirm they match the entity.
- Legal boundary: this is a technical inventory, not legal advice; duties depend on business model and jurisdiction.
- Sample: 25 homepages from one list and one city; a pilot, not an industry estimate.
Data and reproduction
Anonymised data: equipment-homepage-trust-signals-2026.csv (25 rows by 10 columns: ICP number/link, public-security filing, privacy, copyright year, licence, sitemap, company name and time). The repository keeps docs/research/2026-11-homepage-trust-signals.csv. Only 0/1 hits are published; no filing numbers, company names or site URLs.
The parser ran outside the repository on the saved HTML; the same whole-page anchor text and explicit patterns reproduce the figures. Matching numbers to entities requires a separate filing-system lookup and is out of scope.
Sources and definitions
- Sample: the same 25 homepages (positions 71-100 of the 2024 Changzhou first-set major equipment list, after website identification).
- HTML: fetched on 2026-11-10 at 11:40 and stored outside the repository, the same batch as the click-to-call check; this round made zero requests.
- Recognition: ICP as province abbreviation + ICP备 + digits; public-security as 公网安备 + digits or the filing-platform domain; privacy/sitemap from anchor text; copyright as a year within 120 characters after the symbol.
- Definition: whole HTML; repeated signals count once; numbers were not verified against the filing systems.
Frequently asked questions
Does a missing ICP number mean the site is not filed?
Not necessarily. The number may sit in an image, a script or a block that is not rendered. This check combines “number present” with “link to the MIIT filing system”: 21 of 25 homepages show at least one signal and 4 show neither.
Is public-security filing mandatory?
The Measures for the Security Protection of Computer Information Networks Connected to the International Network require networked organisations to file with the public security authority within 30 days of going online. Only 4 of 25 pages showed a filing number or a link to the filing platform — a clear gap.
Why only five privacy links?
Only anchors whose text contains 隐私 or privacy are counted; pop-ups, images, buttons or footer links elsewhere may be missed. Five is a lower bound, not exact coverage.
Must a business licence be displayed?
The E-commerce Law requires e-commerce operators to display their licence prominently on the homepage; an ordinary corporate site is not under the same duty. This page treats the licence as a trust signal, not a blanket compliance verdict.
What does a missing copyright year mean?
Only that no year appears in the static text; it does not mean the page is stale, and a copyright year is not evidence of freshness. 16 of 25 pages show a year, 9 do not.
Is this representative of the equipment industry?
No. 25 homepages from one list and one city; a pilot. The figures describe these pages' static HTML on 2026-11-10.
Does the self-check tool upload the HTML?
No. Parsing runs entirely in the browser with no network request; nothing is stored or sent, and the exported CSV contains only 0/1 values and missing items. The tool uses the same patterns and anchor-text rules as this article, without querying the filing systems or verifying that a number matches the entity.
Is the last-screen check the same sample as the static counts above?
No. The static counts come from desktop HTML fetched at 11:40 and parsed whole-page; this section renders the same sites at 390x844 at 14:45 and observes only the final screen. Time, template and visibility rules differ, so the denominators are not merged; the differences themselves show that mobile and desktop templates can disagree.