An old article does not always need a new date. It may remain useful, need a substantial correction, repeat material covered better elsewhere or have lost its reason to exist. The decision should begin with accuracy and usefulness for readers, not a desire to make the entire archive look fresh.
First check what has changed
Review every specific claim, image, link and example. Note what is still true, what needs verification and what has changed in the service or process described. For an article based on a specific product version, test the workflow again. For a lasting thinking framework, check that the examples remain representative.
Update when the question remains the same
If the article answers the same need but steps or data have changed, update the affected sections, the date of the substantive change and any images or internal links. Add a short note explaining what was revised when it helps readers understand the change. Do not change the date without substantive editing.
Merge when two pages compete to serve the same need
Compare intent, audience and usefulness, not just words in the titles. If two articles offer almost the same answer, select the stronger version, transfer unique material from the other selectively and create a redirect where technically appropriate. Preserve sources, illustrative material and historical data. Do not combine different questions simply to reduce page numbers.
Retire when no useful answer remains
Removing an outdated page may be preferable when the product no longer exists, the content cannot be corrected safely or it offers no value and has no relevant successor. Before retirement, check whether other pages link to it, whether it appears in campaigns or whether it should be retained for historical reasons. Direct readers to a genuinely useful alternative only when one exists.
Use a consistent decision card
For each URL, record the original question, audience, current accuracy, unique contribution, visits or actions where available, choice (update, merge, retain or retire), owner and next review date. The editorial team can then explain what it did and why.
A content audit does not produce a larger number of updated dates. It produces an archive where every page has a reason to remain published, and readers can trust what they read.
This editorial review card and decision workflow are an original framework developed by DigitalNow.