Inventory
Every published page listed, which is the step that surprises people, because the count is nearly always higher than the CMS suggests.
Articles and written content · Editing and content refresh · Sydney
Most businesses with a few years of published content are sitting on more upside in what they already have than in anything they could write next month. It is also the least exciting thing to buy, which is why almost nobody does it.
Grab the snowball. Give it a spin, and watch it grow as you scroll. Just like your archive.
The short answer
A content refresh is updating pages you have already published so they are true, complete and competitive again. It usually outperforms writing new pages because an existing page has standing, links and history that a new one has to earn from nothing.
The work is not only rewriting. Every page has three possible fates: fix it, merge it into a better page and redirect, or delete it. Deciding which is most of the value, and delete is the answer more often than anyone expects or wants.
We audit first and recommend honestly, including when the recommendation is a smaller job than you asked us to quote for. It sits inside our wider content writing service, and because our Snowball SEO platform automates the search heavy lifting other agencies bill by the hour, more of your budget goes into the work itself.
The difference
Three fates, and the decision is made from data rather than sentiment. The page somebody spent a fortnight on four years ago has no special claim.
Where merging is the answer, that usually means building a pillar page and redirecting the thin pages into it.
The cost
How many pages, and how much of the work is judgement rather than typing. The audit is a fixed piece of thinking; the fixing scales with what it finds.
Assessment only
Every page assessed against traffic, links, accuracy and overlap, with a fix, merge or delete recommendation for each. Useful on its own.
The top slice
The pages closest to a return: page-two rankings, out-of-date facts, and anything with links pointing at it that is currently underperforming.
Merge and redirect
Thin overlapping pages merged into stronger ones with the redirects handled properly, which is where the largest gains usually sit.
We quote the audit as a fixed piece and the work by band once we know what is there. See content repurposing for the related argument about reuse.
Even if you never commission a single fix, knowing which of your pages are working, which are duplicating each other and which should not exist is worth having. It changes what you publish next, which is the more expensive decision.
It is also the honest way to sell this. We would rather tell you that forty of your pages should be deleted and eight are worth fixing than quote to rewrite all forty-eight.
That recommendation has cost us work before, and it is still the right one, because a rewritten page nobody needed is a cost dressed up as an asset.
The scope
An assessment you can act on without us, and then whichever work you choose.
Every page with traffic, links, accuracy and overlap assessed, and one recommendation each: fix, merge or delete.
Fixed pages: facts updated, answer moved to the top, structure repaired, with what changed recorded.
Which pages fold into which, and the redirects written out so nothing is lost when the old URLs go.
Every figure, rule and date verified against a current source, which is the part that most often turns out to matter.
Links from your existing pages pointed at whatever survives, since a merge with no link updates loses most of its benefit.
What to revisit and when, so this becomes a habit rather than a project you do once every four years.
The return
Less than people expect, and the number is not a criticism. Sites accumulate pages the way drawers accumulate cables, and nobody notices until somebody counts.
The objection is always the same: somebody paid for those pages. That money is already spent, and keeping a page that nothing links to and nobody reads does not recover any of it.
What deletion buys is a site where the good pages are easier to find, both for readers and for a crawler deciding how much of your site is worth its time. On a site that already struggles to get indexed, that is not a small thing.
Where a page has links pointing at it, we redirect rather than delete, so whatever standing it earned goes somewhere useful instead of nowhere.
The process
Two to three weeks for the audit, then work in priority bands.
Every published page listed, which is the step that surprises people, because the count is nearly always higher than the CMS suggests.
Traffic, links, accuracy and overlap for each, turned into one recommendation per page.
Fix, merge or delete, decided together. This is the conversation where the value is, and it is worth having properly.
The pages closest to a return first: page-two rankings, out-of-date facts, and anything with links pointing at it.
Thin pages folded into stronger ones, redirects in place, internal links repointed.
What to revisit and when, so the library does not silently rot again over the next four years.
The brief
This is the one content service where the honest answer often reduces the size of the job, which is a useful thing to test for.
If the answer is no, you are being sold a rewrite of everything. A real audit always finds pages that should go.
Pages on page two, pages with out-of-date facts, and pages with links pointing at them. Anything else is starting from the wrong end.
Merging without redirects loses whatever the old pages had earned. Ask specifically who does it and how it is checked afterwards.
A merge that leaves fifty internal links pointing at deleted pages has undone most of its own benefit. It should be in the scope, not an afterthought.
We are happy to answer all four, and the audit stands on its own if you would rather act on it yourself. See topical authority for the structure worth consolidating towards.
Start here
Send us your sitemap and we will tell you honestly what is working. The free consult is a working session, not a sales call, and you leave with three things whether or not you book us.
Good questions
It is updating pages you have already published so they are true, complete and competitive again. It usually outperforms writing new pages, because an existing page has standing, links and history that a new page has to earn from nothing.
The audit is a fixed piece of work and the fixes are quoted by band once we know what is there. What moves it is how many pages exist, how much is factually out of date, how much overlap there is, and whether redirects and internal links need reworking.
Often, yes, and it is the recommendation people resist most. A page nothing links to and nobody reads is not a neutral asset: it dilutes the site and consumes crawl attention that better pages need. Where a page has links, we redirect rather than delete.
Pages sitting on page two, because something small is usually missing. Pages with facts, figures or rules that have changed. And anything with links pointing at it that is underperforming, because that standing is already paid for.
Anything with figures, prices or rules in it at least yearly. Evergreen explanations every two to three years. The useful habit is a calendar rather than a project done once every four years when somebody notices.
Done carelessly it can, which is why redirects and internal links are part of the work rather than an afterthought. Done properly, consolidating thin overlapping pages into stronger ones is one of the more reliable improvements available.
Yes, and plenty of clients should. Knowing which pages work, which duplicate each other and which should not exist changes what you publish next, which is the more expensive decision.
Then we talk it through, and sometimes you are right: a page can be worth keeping for reasons that do not show up in traffic data, such as a sales team that sends it every week. The audit informs the decision rather than making it.