What is the fastest way to show a client a landing page?

Host the page at a temporary public URL and send the link. The client opens it in their own browser on their own device, which is also the only way to find out whether it holds up on their phone.

Should you put a client review page on the real domain?

Usually not. A separate review URL keeps unapproved work off the production domain and out of search results, and it lets you take the review copy down without touching the live site.

How do you stop a review page from being indexed by Google?

Host it somewhere that sends a noindex directive on hosted user content, or add a noindex meta tag to the page. Undraft serves hosted projects with a noindex response header for this reason.

How do you get specific feedback instead of 'make it pop'?

Give the client a way to point. When they can click the headline and comment on the headline, vague global notes drop sharply because the format invites specifics.

How many review rounds should a landing page take?

Two is realistic if feedback is pinned to elements and versions are tracked: one round for direction, one for detail. Rounds multiply mainly when notes are ambiguous and have to be clarified before they can be acted on.

How to Share an AI-Generated Landing Page With a Client

Generating a landing page is now the fast part of landing-page work. Client sign-off is the slow part, and it is slow for reasons that have nothing to do with how the page was built. This guide is for freelancers, agencies, and in-house marketers who need approval without a week of email.

The Problem

Client review of a marketing page fails in a predictable way.

You send something. The client reacts globally — “it doesn’t feel premium,” “the top bit is too busy” — because a global reaction is the only kind that prose comfortably expresses. You then guess at which specific things produce that feeling, change five of them, and send it again. The client says it is better but the top bit is still busy.

The underlying causes:

A landing page is judged by feel, and feel is described vaguely. Unlike a bug, there is no unambiguous statement of the problem.
Reviewers cannot indicate location in an email. So they describe location, and description is lossy.
Mobile is where the page is judged and rarely where it is reviewed. A desktop screenshot hides a headline that wraps to four lines on a phone.

The Solution

Three moves, in order.

1. Host it at a review URL, not on the client’s domain

Put the page somewhere temporary and public. This is better than deploying to the real domain for three reasons: unapproved copy never touches production, you can take it down without a deploy, and nothing unapproved risks getting indexed.

That last one matters more than people expect. A review copy of a page that gets crawled can compete with the real page later. Host review copies somewhere that marks hosted content noindex — Undraft does this with a response header on every hosted project — or add a noindex meta tag yourself.

For a generated single-file page, this step is an upload and a paste.

2. Send one link, with a frame

The message matters as much as the link:

Here’s the draft. Interactive — please click through and open it on your phone too. Reviewing headline, offer, and layout this round; images are placeholders.

You have now pre-empted the four comments about stock photos and pointed the client at mobile.

3. Let the client mark up the page itself

This is the step that collapses rounds. On Undraft, the client clicks any element on the live page and pins a comment to it. “Too busy” arrives attached to the specific block that is too busy.

The format changes the feedback, not just its location. Asked to comment on a thing, people produce specifics. Asked to comment on a page, people produce impressions.

Getting Copy Feedback Separately From Design Feedback

Landing pages have two review axes and they interfere with each other. Mixing them costs a round.

Round one: message. Headline, offer, proof, call to action. Ask the client to ignore visuals entirely. If the message is wrong, the design is irrelevant.

Round two: execution. Layout, hierarchy, imagery, spacing, mobile behaviour.

Doing this in one round produces a review where the client argues about the button colour on a page whose headline they are going to replace anyway.

Examples

Before

Send a desktop screenshot of the generated page as a PDF.
Client replies: “Love the direction. Can it feel more premium? Also the phone version looked weird.”
You ask what looked weird on the phone.
Client sends a photo of their screen, taken at an angle.
You identify a wrapping headline, fix it, send another PDF.

Three days, two ambiguous notes, no record of the request.

After

Upload the page, send the link with the review frame.
Client opens it on desktop and phone, pins four comments: headline, one image, the button label, and the cramped mobile spacing on the third section.
You fix all four, re-upload to the same project.
Client reopens the same link, sees version 2, resolves three comments and replies on the fourth.

One day, four specific notes, and a version history you can point to if scope is questioned later.

Summary

Host a review copy and send one link — a real interactive page on the client’s own device catches what screenshots hide, especially on mobile.
Split message review from execution review — approve the words first; reviewing both at once reliably wastes a round.
Avoid unindexed-by-accident review pages — keep unapproved copy off production and served with a noindex directive.

Next: see how to share an HTML file as a live link, how to share a Claude Artifact if the page came from Claude, and what it looks like when clients comment on a webpage directly.