Start from the exact profile
Use the ownership action on the profile you want to manage. The sign-in flow should preserve that destination rather than drop you on an unrelated dashboard. Signing in identifies the person; it does not prove control of the website. The claim needs a separate challenge bound to the correct domain, account and scope.
Verify control with an explicit challenge
A DNS token or an approved file-based challenge can demonstrate control when the server verifies it correctly. The verification must handle expiry, domain scope and competing claims. Do not accept a logo, matching company name or email address as equivalent proof. Existing ownership disputes need a review process; a new request should not silently transfer another organization’s control.
Ask for the change you actually need
A corrected description, removal of a profile and a new technical analysis are different requests. Explain the requested outcome and attach only necessary evidence. An owner may correct factual presentation, but should not edit measured scores directly. A reanalysis records a new observation; it does not erase the earlier measurement or guarantee a higher result.
Keep a route for concerns while registration is closed
Public profile concerns need an accessible contact route even when new Yepsy accounts are not being created. Include the profile URL and the specific issue, without sending passwords or private records. For verified owners, the Atlas workspace organizes request status and evidence. Removal handling should also prevent a routine crawler from immediately republishing the same withdrawn profile.
Identity, ownership and a profile are different things
A person can have a Yepsy account without controlling a particular website. Claiming an Atlas profile therefore needs a separate ownership proof. A DNS record or an approved file-based challenge can establish control over the domain according to the chosen verification policy. Authentication alone cannot do so.
After verification, distinguish a correction request from a rescan request or a removal request. A correction explains why an observation or description is wrong. A rescan asks for a new dated analysis after changes. Removal affects publication and must also prevent an automatic crawler from silently recreating the suppressed profile.
| Decision | Useful requirement | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | Prove control of the relevant domain. | Scoped, expiring ownership challenge. |
| Correct | Identify the disputed field and evidence. | Reviewable request and audit trail. |
| Remove | Suppress the public record appropriately. | De-indexing and re-crawl suppression policy. |
Where this goes wrong
Public registration being closed must not remove every path for reporting incorrect personal or business information. Keep a protected contact route. It should not grant account ownership through an unverified email, but it can create a reviewable inquiry.
Ownership provides accountable control over requests, not control over the measurement outcome.
Turn it into a working checklist
- Preserve the profile through sign-in.
- Verify domain control separately.
- Choose correction, removal or reanalysis.
- Do not edit scores or bypass another owner.
A concrete next step
Prepare the URL, disputed field, reason and relevant evidence. Avoid sending passwords or private keys. After a new scan, compare the observation date and coverage before comparing the total score.
Watch a related case
The video could not be loaded. Try again later.