Every publishing programme eventually produces more content than anyone can hold in their head, and the content audit that was going to fix it never quite happens. At that point the archive starts drifting: advice that was true in 2023, screenshots of interfaces that no longer exist, references to features that were retired. The site keeps ranking on some of it, which is the part that costs you.
Why does stale content matter more than it used to?
Because a page that ranks is a page being read, and a confident wrong answer damages trust in a way a missing answer does not. Google's guidance on helpful content is explicit that accuracy and demonstrable expertise are what it is trying to reward, and an archive of expired advice argues against you on both.
There is also a compounding effect. A reader who finds one page giving obsolete instructions discounts everything else on the domain, including the pages that are current.
You cannot maintain everything, so decide at publication time which pages carry claims that will expire. That single habit turns an impossible re-read into a short list.
Which pages actually decay?
Not all of them, and the difference is predictable enough to sort at the time of writing.
| Type | Decay rate | Review cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Tool tutorials with interface steps | Fast | Every 6 months |
| Platform-specific tactics | Fast | Every 6-12 months |
| Pricing, statistics, benchmarks | Fast | Annually, or remove the number |
| Conceptual explanations and cornerstone pages | Slow | Every 2-3 years |
| Evergreen principles and frameworks | Very slow | Only when contradicted |
The practical move is to tag each piece into one of these lanes when it is published. Retrofitting the classification across an existing archive is a one-time cost; after that, the review list generates itself.
How do you prioritise within the stale set?
By traffic, because a wrong page nobody reads is a smaller problem than a wrong page ranking third. Cross the list of pages due for review against impressions from the last quarter and work top down.
This inverts the instinct to start at the oldest post. Age predicts staleness; traffic predicts cost. You want both, and traffic is the tiebreaker.
Update in place or republish?
Update in place, keeping the URL, in almost every case. The URL holds the links and the ranking history, and moving it trades a real asset for a cosmetic date.
Change the modified date honestly when the content genuinely changed. Bumping dates on unchanged pages to look fresh is a tactic that fools nothing and undermines the one signal you would want believed.
Republishing an updated article at a new URL to get a new publication date. You lose the accumulated signals of the original and create a duplicate of yourself in the process.
What does the maintenance routine look like?
- Each month, pull pages in the fast-decay lanes whose review date has passed.
- Sort by impressions and take the top ten.
- For each: confirm the steps still match the interface, the numbers still hold, and nothing has been retired since.
- Fix, note the modified date, and set the next review date.
- Anything that cannot be made accurate becomes a pruning decision instead.
Ten pages a month is a couple of hours and clears well over a hundred a year, which for most archives is every page that actually decays.
How do you stop the problem growing?
Write fewer expiring claims. A screenshot of a settings screen dates a page instantly; describing what the setting does survives the redesign. A statistic without a named source cannot be verified later even by you.
One structural note: none of this works if publishing and maintenance compete for the same hours with publishing always winning. Treat the monthly review as fixed capacity rather than as something done when there is time, because there is never time, and the archive is the asset the whole programme is built on.
Pick the ten highest-traffic articles you published more than eighteen months ago and open them as a stranger would. Whatever you find there is what your best-performing pages are currently telling people.
Publishing faster than you can maintain?
We will find the pages whose advice has expired and prioritise the ones still earning traffic on it.
Get in Touch →Does this apply to your site?
Reading about it is one thing. Point the scan at your own site and see whether this applies to you, and what it is worth fixing.
Free and unlimited. No account, no card, and you get every finding rather than a teaser.