The short answer
Refresh an article when its answer, evidence or practical instructions need a substantive change. Keep a short log of what changed and why. Updating a date alone does not tell the reader that the guidance was actually reviewed or improved.
A worked example
A fictional tool guide still says only a word counter is available after image tools have launched. The refresh should update the capability description, screenshots and relevant links. If the guidance remains accurate but a reviewer checked it again, distinguish that review from a new publication or a major rewrite.
A practical checklist
- Start with a concrete reason: changed product behavior, broken source, missing answer, confusing instruction or new approved evidence. Record the issue before editing.
- Review the affected sections and their internal links. Update examples when they no longer match the current interface or available data.
- Summarize the substantive changes and record an actual review date. Keep original publication history separate so returning readers understand what is new.
What to avoid
Avoid adding unsupported results or switching dates to create an appearance of freshness. Do not revise unrelated paragraphs merely to claim a larger update. A good refresh makes a specific reader task easier or more accurate, and the change log should explain that improvement.
A useful follow-up
Should every article get a new date each month?
No. Record real publication, modification and review events; schedule a review based on the topic's change rate and importance.
