Inventory and assign
Give each URL a topic, audience, owner, review date and related pages. Identify duplicates and language variants.
GUIDE / PROTOCOL
Maintain a reliable editorial corpus
Editorial quality includes the ability to correct, merge and retire content that no longer helps readers.
Direct answer
How can a rich site avoid becoming outdated?
Assign every page an owner, purpose and sources. Trigger reviews according to topic volatility and observed changes, then choose an update, merge, redirect or documented retirement.
01 / Review method
Review method
Prioritise reviews
Separate volatile facts, stable methods and opinion. Check high-impact pages, broken links, old dates and unsourced claims first.
Choose the intervention
Correct facts and provenance, expand when a question is missing, merge duplicates and redirect retired URLs when that helps readers.
Check propagation
After release, verify internal links, translations, structured data, sitemap and direct answers. Record what changed.
IN PRACTICE
A correction is complete when its consequences have been reviewed
A page belongs to a system: summary, title, tables, links, language versions and structured data. Correcting a sentence requires finding where it is reused and checking that each version still tells the same story.
Which check comes first?
Choose the situation you observed. Each path gives a first check, useful evidence and the limit of that check.
Two pages give incompatible information
- First check
- Isolate the same claim on both pages and compare source, effective date and scope. Name the reference page and decision owner before propagating a correction.
- Evidence to retain
- Both URLs, exact wording, references, effective date, decision and pages or snippets repeating the information.
- Limit to remember
- The newest page is not necessarily correct. Changing a publication date does not resolve different definitions or missing evidence.
Language versions no longer say the same thing
- First check
- Compare a sensitive claim in every language: number, date, condition, exclusion and source link. Identify the approved version and translations actually synchronised.
- Evidence to retain
- Each language URL, content ID, passage, source version, approval date and unresolved difference.
- Limit to remember
- Translated navigation and correct language links do not establish content equivalence. Publishing staff must be able to see partial updates.
Structured data contradicts the visible page
- First check
- Match important properties to displayed passages: identity, date, offer or question and answer. Check content and correspondence before markup syntax.
- Evidence to retain
- URL, markup type, property, declared value, visible passage and verification after correction.
- Limit to remember
- A syntax validator confirms neither truth nor rich-result eligibility. Do not mark up absent or misleading content to improve visibility.
Further reading
| Situation | Avoid | Useful correction |
|---|---|---|
| Corrected number | Changing only the paragraph. | Review the associated table, caption, summary and structured value. |
| Moved page | Updating only the visible link. | Check destination, fragment and return path. |
| Translated version | Copying words while retaining an obsolete example. | Also review unit, date, source, links and interpretive scope. |
Identify
Which claims depend on the change?
Propagate
Which pages and languages reuse them?
Review
Do numbers, links and limits agree everywhere?
Final check
An update date marks a real edit. It does not redefine source or observation dates. Keep those roles separate in prose and references.
Documentary references
Consulted on .
Reading workshop
A definition changes; tracking goes beyond the paragraph
The DEMO dossier simulates a partial editorial revision. Its states do not report checks actually performed on this website.
Fictional data and records for learning: none of these results comes from a live service query.
From “received” to “validated”
The new source version defines the indicator over validated answers, whereas the earlier one used received answers. No new counts are supplied: changing a word cannot preserve the old rate.
Classify the change
- DEMO record or output
- Old and new definitions
- Scenario state
- The denominator changes
- Required follow-up
- Retain passages and request recalculation.
Revise the summary
- DEMO record or output
- French paragraph
- Scenario state
- Definition corrected, figure suspended
- Required follow-up
- Do not claim a recalculated rate.
Propagate to versions
- DEMO record or output
- Existing translations
- Scenario state
- English pending, other languages unchecked
- Required follow-up
- Disclose partial progress and assign each review.
Check derived outputs
- DEMO record or output
- FAQ and JSON-LD
- Scenario state
- Old definition still needs to be located
- Required follow-up
- Compare rendering and fields before closing.
Which note honestly reflects this progress?
Open each proposition to compare its diagnosis. More checks may still be needed.
Entire corpus updated: the French page is corrected
No. Translations and derived outputs remain open. A local correction does not close the whole scope.
French definition revised; rate and other outputs under review
Yes. Name corrected and pending items without claiming recalculation exists.
Change only the date to indicate freshness
No. A date records neither the definition nor propagation status.
Fictional propagation log
Trigger: DEMO definition received → validated Source: both versions retained FR summary: definition corrected, rate suspended EN: review pending; other languages: unchecked FAQ and JSON-LD: checks still open Closure: not reached; recalculation and propagation awaited
FR and EN labels describe invented states in one dossier. Translating them does not mean that language version has already been reviewed.
Documentation of the rules, separate from fictional examples
02 / Evidence to keep
Evidence to keep
Page register
URL, intent, owner, status, language, review date and next trigger.
Source log
Claim, primary source, verification date and uncertainty.
Editorial decision
Update, merge, keep or retire, with reason and link impact.
Post-edit review
Published version, links, languages, markup and remaining issues.
Compare other situations and exercises
PRACTICAL CHECK
Before reaching a conclusion
A frequent misreading and the check that helps avoid it.
Premature conclusion
A lightly updated page may remain misleading when examples, sources or other language versions keep the old state. A date alone does not measure freshness.
Decisive check
When facts change, review the central claim, incoming links, references, translations and structured data. Record whether the page should be corrected, merged or retired.
AFTER THE REVIEW
Decide from the evidence
An old page still receives visits but its facts changed
Keep the URL if intent remains relevant, update the facts and review date, then check links and all six languages.
Two articles now answer the same question
Choose the more useful page, merge evidence and redirect the other after checking links and language variants.
Decision and review trail
Decision and review trail
What the check must help decide and what to retain so the choice can be reviewed.
Sufficient evidence
Compare published content with its source, author, review date and outbound links. Find pages that remain accurate but no longer answer the current need.
Next decision
Update, merge or retire based on observed value. Record reason, owner and next review date instead of making untracked edits.
Detailed inspection cases
Typical situations for preparing a check. They do not describe completed assignments or actual observations.
A source disappeared
What to inspect
Locate the reference in the evidence record, seek a retained version and check its date.
Decision and action
Keep historical provenance and disclose unavailability; an archive does not automatically confirm the current situation.
Record to retain
Old URL, dated copy and current verification scope.
Two pages answer the same question
What to inspect
Compare intent, unique data, incoming links and useful differences.
Decision and action
Merge only when distinct value is absent; preserve sources and relevant destinations for old references.
Record to retain
Editorial comparison, retained content and link mapping.
A correction does not propagate
What to inspect
Locate the claim in profiles, hubs, translations and search indexes.
Decision and action
Correct its shared source and recheck affected versions.
Record to retain
Occurrences, owner, corrected versions and final check.
Review before deciding
These questions complement the method. They help establish what is actually supported while retaining qualifications in the record.
Correction propagation
Does the correction reach affected related pages, translations, snippets, tables and structured data? A fresh date without substantive change does not resolve outdated information.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- The French page shows the new value; one translation and a search excerpt retain the old one.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- The correction is incomplete. Update generated surfaces and verify rendering, rather than changing only the date.
Understandable retirement
When a page is merged or retired, does its destination preserve useful intent and are links corrected? Review old references before redirecting to a general page.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- An old specialist guide redirects home; no section addresses its original question.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- Choose an equivalent destination if available, or make the removal explicit. Fix links still under control.
Source of generated content
Does the correction reach the data producing pages and excerpts? Run a test generation to detect a returning old value.
Documentation consulted : W3C · Data on the Web Best Practices ·
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- Source data was corrected; a test rebuild retains the correction in affected pages and excerpts.
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- Retain data version and reviewed scope. Repeat after the next generation change.
TOOLS / REGISTERS
Information to record
Trigger review when a source changes, a link fails or a decision becomes sensitive. A new page date should correspond to an actual content change.
- Access date and time zone
- Exact URL
- Claim to verify
- Version / revision
- Review owner
- Next review
- Decision / next action
03 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
How often should pages be reviewed?
According to volatility and impact. A provider or rule change calls for prompt review; a stable method may need less frequent checks.
When should two pages be merged?
When they answer the same intent and repeat one another without a distinct angle or data.
Should an old page be deleted?
Not if it retains clear historical value. State its date, context and what is no longer current.
Can translation wait?
Propagate or clearly flag a significant update; a silently outdated version misleads readers.
How to identify the contents to be reviewed together?
Link the pages to the sources, values and components they share. A inventory of editorial dependencies facilitates the search of times and limits the corrections that remain isolated.
04 / Official references
Official references
05 / Continue reading
Continue reading
Describe a context
Turn a need into a defined assignment
A few interventions relevant to this topic. Each amount covers the stated reference scope; the quote confirms priorities and overlapping tasks.
One-off maintenance
Compatible updates and functional checks.
Website : 1 · 2 h
From 160 € excl. VAT / 192 € incl. VAT
Preparation and delivery checks
- What to prepare
- CMS and extension versions, available backup and priority functions.
- Suggested process
- Check the initial state, prepare a rollback, make changes and review affected pages.
- Delivery to agree
- Updated versions, compatibility checks and remaining issues.
- Review for this service
- Compare installed versions and repeat essential functions after updating.
- Scope boundaries
- A full redesign, subscriptions and unrelated incidents are priced separately.
Indicative working scope, to confirm in the quotation.
Publish supplied content
Layout, links, media and publishing checks.
Pages : 5 · 4 h
From 320 € excl. VAT / 384 € incl. VAT
Preparation and delivery checks
- What to prepare
- Approved text, authorised media, link destinations and desired publication status.
- Suggested process
- Check the initial state, prepare a rollback, make changes and review affected pages.
- Delivery to agree
- Integrated pages, completed media information and checked links in existing templates.
- Review for this service
- Review each integrated page, its links, media and publication status.
- Scope boundaries
- A full redesign, subscriptions and unrelated incidents are priced separately.
Indicative working scope, to confirm in the quotation.
Handover & reversibility
Documentation, access and project recovery procedure.
Project : 1 · 4 h
From 320 € excl. VAT / 384 € incl. VAT
Preparation and delivery checks
- What to prepare
- Project inventory, service owners, procedures and person taking over.
- Suggested process
- Check resources, test recovery in an isolated scope and document the procedure.
- Delivery to agree
- Handover documentation, agreed role transfer and verification with the successor.
- Review for this service
- Check that the recipient can identify files, access and essential operations.
- Scope boundaries
- The actual incident scope and unavailable resources may require a new estimate.
Indicative working scope, to confirm in the quotation.
Prepare and review a service
Use these notes to scope the request and review delivery. The quotation defines the agreed work, volumes and schedule.
Webmaster & day-to-day operations
Keep a website usable and resolve a clearly identified request.
- What to prepare
- Supply affected URLs, the symptom, required access and publishing constraints.
- Suggested process
- Check the initial state, prepare a rollback, make changes and review affected pages.
- Delivery to agree
- Agree a note covering changes, completed checks and outstanding issues.
- Scope boundaries
- A full redesign, subscriptions and unrelated incidents are priced separately.
Acceptance check to prepare
After a correction, retain URL, variant and Date, Age and Cache-Control headers. Compare the received copy with the expected version; a visual reload alone does not prove update propagation.
See scope and pricingDOCUMENTED REFERENCE
SemVer: connect a version increment to a declared change
A version number cannot reveal a change’s impact by itself. For a public API already using SemVer with a positive major version, the team must first classify the change. The calculator then illustrates the corresponding increment; it performs no compatibility audit.
| Reference | Value or form | What it identifies |
|---|---|---|
| PATCH | 1.9.7 → 1.9.8 | A change limited to backward-compatible bug fixes increments PATCH. From 1.9.7, the scenario gives 1.9.8. A fix that incompatibly changes the public contract does not automatically belong here. |
| MINOR | 1.9.7 → 1.10.0 | Adding backward-compatible public functionality requires a MINOR increment. PATCH resets to zero: 1.9.7 becomes 1.10.0. When changes are grouped, retain the category requiring the highest increment. |
| deprecated | MINOR | Marking public API functionality as deprecated also requires a MINOR increment. Deprecation is not removal: documentation must announce the transition before an incompatible removal in a major release. |
| MAJOR | 1.9.7 → 2.0.0 | An incompatible public API change requires a MAJOR increment and resets MINOR and PATCH to zero: 1.9.7 becomes 2.0.0. This rule does not guarantee every dependency or configuration works without verification. |
| 0.y.z / -rc.1 | context required | Major zero denotes initial development; API stability must not be assumed. A prerelease might not satisfy its associated normal version’s compatibility. The calculator excludes these cases and build metadata to keep an explicit starting point. |
| released content | immutable version | Under SemVer, an already versioned release must not be modified in place. Keep the exact version, change notes and public contract, plus a separately checked digest for byte identity. Precedence is neither a release date nor an integrity proof. |
Calculate a declared increment
Original teaching examples; no real release is evaluated.
Start with a normal version with a positive major, no prerelease or metadata; at most 256 characters. Declare the public API impact. Output is a minimal scenario increment, not validation of the change.
Calculated locally in your browser; input is neither transmitted nor stored.
Calculation updated.
Scenario version
1.10.0
First decisive criterion : MINOR
Conditional on your classification; no compatibility test was performed.
Eight scenario increments
| Current version | Declared change | Scenario version |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9.7 | Backward-compatible fixes only | 1.9.8 |
| 1.9.7 | Backward-compatible public addition | 1.10.0 |
| 1.9.7 | Backward-compatible public deprecation | 1.10.0 |
| 1.9.7 | Incompatible public change | 2.0.0 |
| 2.0.0 | Backward-compatible fixes only | 2.0.1 |
| 4.99.99 | Backward-compatible public addition | 4.100.0 |
| 9007199254740993.5.6 | Incompatible public change | 9007199254740994.0.0 |
| 1.2.999999999999999999999999 | Backward-compatible fixes only | 1.2.1000000000000000000000000 |
Original interpretation and examples based on SemVer 2.0.0, originally authored by Tom Preston-Werner; reference text under CC BY 3.0. SemVer 2.0.0 · CC BY 3.0
Continue checking
Implication for the record
The result is conditional on your classification and the project’s adoption of SemVer. It chooses no version to install, contacts no registry and computes no dependency constraint. Documentation-only or internal changes need context and are not classified automatically.
Does this calculator understand ^1.2.3, ~1.2 or >=1 constraints?
No. SemVer here defines versions and precedence, not a universal constraint language. Package managers add rules, especially for prereleases and major zero. This form calculates an increment from a normal version with a positive major.
Primary documentation
Documentation consulted on .
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Keeping pages according to their risk of obsolescence
A corpus grows, but control dates no longer follow the changes in sources and tools. Maintenance begins by distinguishing the stable information from the elements that need to be reviewed.
Updated on .
Priority checks
Inventory links, dated data, screenshots, procedures and responsible people. Define a review trigger for each page: a changed source or tool, a reported inconsistency or a periodic check.
Interpretation pitfalls
Only changing the update date does not demonstrate a revision of the background. A local correction may also leave a contradiction on another page that recovers the same information.
Working record to retain
The editorial register indicates the latest verification, the changes made, the sources concerned and the next check. Dependent elements are reviewed together to limit the spread of lost information.