How a Refresh Cadence Transformed Editorial Workflow

An editorial team was publishing a high volume of content, but much of it was low-value and redundant. For example, they would write an article on "Savings Account vs. CD Rates" one month, then publish "CD Rates vs. Savings Account" the next.

This approach led to:
❌ Duplicate or near-duplicate content cluttering the site.
❌ Minimal long-term value, as some pieces weren’t worth updating.
❌ Editors focused on quantity over strategy, producing short, low-impact articles.

The editorial process lacked structure, leading to duplicate content, inefficiencies, and missed updates. Editors often rewrote near-identical articles, cluttering the site instead of improving existing content. With no clear review system, articles were published and forgotten, resulting in outdated or low-value pages. The push for high content output encouraged quantity over strategy, leading to short, redundant pieces that added little value. Additionally, editors were unaware of older content, causing missed opportunities for optimization. Without a clear refresh cadence, important pages weren’t updated effectively, risking lower engagement and weaker search rankings.

To improve content quality and avoid redundant publishing, a structured refresh cadence was introduced, ensuring each article was reviewed twice per year. The refresh system worked on specific timeframes based on content value:
‍
✅ 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 180-day review cycles depending on competition and relevance.
✅ High-competition pages (e.g., “Best Credit Cards”) were reviewed monthly, but not just to change the date—actual updates were required.
✅ Low-value content was flagged so that editors could decide whether to update or remove it.

The system was managed through Airtable, which calculated review timelines based on the last published date. Editors were given a weekly and upcoming update queue, helping them plan updates efficiently.

Results

✅ Editors became more strategic, knowing they’d review their content in six months.

✅ Redundant and low-value content was eliminated, improving site quality.

✅ A more systematic approach to updates ensured content stayed relevant without gaming the system (e.g., avoiding unnecessary republishing just to refresh the date).

Editors became more aware of older content, reducing overlooked opportunities.

Key Takeaway

✔ This refresh cadence helped shift the editorial mindset from pumping out content to maintaining quality and relevance—leading to better rankings, engagement, and overall content performance.