When an older article loses traffic, the standard response is a content refresh. The title changes. New keywords enter the headings. A few paragraphs become longer. The publication date moves forward.
But the article may still contain the same expired facts.
Fresh formatting is not fresh information
Travel guidance changes. Products disappear. Prices move. Regulations are updated. People change roles. Statistics remain quoted long after the original study stopped describing the market.
A page can look recently edited while becoming less reliable sentence by sentence.
This is why I separate content decay from fact decay. Ranking decline is a performance signal. Fact expiry is an accuracy problem, even when the page still ranks.
Not every fact has the same shelf life
A definition may remain stable for years. A visa requirement or opening time may not. I like to label claims by volatility, source, last verified date, and owner.
That thinking led to my Content Decay & Fact Expiry Radar. It helps find statements that deserve review before a generic rewrite begins.
What I would check on Monday
- Highlight dates, prices, statistics, names, availability, and recommendations.
- Open the original source for every important claim.
- Prioritize facts that can affect a customer decision.
- Remove claims that cannot be verified.
- Record a review date and a responsible owner.
Questions about content fact decay
Is fact decay the same as content decay?
No. Content decay describes declining performance or relevance. Fact decay describes information becoming outdated or inaccurate.
Should the publication date change after every edit?
Only when the update is meaningful enough to justify it. A new date should not imply that unchanged claims were freshly verified.
Which facts should be reviewed most often?
Review high volatility facts and anything that can materially influence a reader’s decision, safety, cost, or expectations.
