This content audit template combines reader task, current source, ownership, usage, and a recommended action. Write the reason and the dependency beside the action. The original fictional inventory shows why traffic alone cannot decide which pages to remove.
Start with a small, inspectable inventory
The example is a fictional community makerspace site. Its page paths are specimen labels, and all usage figures are illustrative views for the same sample month, September 2026.
| ID and page | Reader task and evidence | Sample views | Proposed action |
|---|---|---|---|
C1: /join |
Current joining guide; owner has reviewed its FeeSheet-v3 price source. | 420 | Keep. |
C2: /joining-faq |
Repeats joining steps, uses older FeeSheet-v1, and contains a unique accessibility note. | 95 | Merge useful material into C1, with owner review and a redirect decision. |
C3: /news/autumn-2024 |
Announcement for a past exhibition. | 12 | Archive with its historical context retained. |
C4: /safety-orientation |
Current orientation task; owner confirmation is missing. | 18 | Review needed. |
The Australian Public Service content-audit guidance combines analytics with qualitative review and per-item action recommendations. It also distinguishes archiving from removal. This inventory and its decisions are original general-editor examples.
Review the reader task and the current facts
Select C1 and C2 to compare the duplicate pair. They address the same joining task, but their price sources differ. C1 has the current reviewed source in the example; C2 still points to the older sheet.
That is a reason to reconcile the content, not to discard C2 without reading it. Its unique accessibility note needs review and a destination in the current guide.
Record the useful material, the receiving page, who needs to review it, and what must happen to the old path. A recommendation that says only “merge” leaves those decisions to someone else.
Make the merge dependency visible
The C2 action note is:
Review the unique accessibility note and move the useful, confirmed wording into C1. Reconcile the joining information against FeeSheet-v3. Ask the owner how the old path should be handled before retiring C2.
The example does not perform those edits or create a redirect. It makes the work and dependencies visible before a site editor acts.
Keep the original source reference in the audit record. If someone questions the recommendation later, they should be able to find which material was current and which content needed preservation.
Avoid a low-traffic deletion rule
Compare C3 with C4. Both have low illustrative views, but they support different tasks.
C3 describes an event that has passed. Archiving may retain its historical value while making its status clear. Decide how archived material will remain accessible and be distinguished from current announcements.
C4 supports a current orientation task. Its missing owner confirmation is a review gap. The supplied record does not establish that the page is unnecessary or that its content should be deleted.
Choose Low-traffic comparison to inspect those reasons together. Neither an old publication date nor a small view count supplies a complete content decision.
Give each item an action someone can carry out
Use fields for ID, path, reader task, owner, current facts and source, usage period, recommended action, rationale, dependency, and next review.
Your action vocabulary can include keep, rewrite, combine, remove, archive, and review needed. Define what each means for your site. A recommendation is ready for discussion when the receiving editor can identify the next work and the information still needed.
The blank template requires a rationale when selecting a local recommendation. Filters group the proposed actions; changing a selection does not alter a website or remove a page.
Build an audit of your own collection
Create one complete, self-contained HTML content audit review.
Site or collection and audit scope: [FILL IN]
For each content item, supply:
- ID and page/asset reference
- Reader task
- Owner and review status
- Current factual source and version
- Usage metric, period, and known limits
- Proposed action, rationale, dependency, and next review
[PASTE MY INVENTORY]
Show per-item recommendations with their evidence and next work.
Distinguish keep, rewrite, combine, remove, archive, and review needed.
Do not choose deletion solely from traffic or age. Leave missing owner
confirmation visible rather than inventing current accuracy.
Let readers filter proposed actions and inspect a duplicate pair's
shared task, unique content, receiving page, and dependencies. Keep
archive distinct from deletion. Show any supplied low-traffic comparison
without turning sample figures into real analytics or an SEO guarantee.
Include a blank audit item and require a rationale for a local action
recommendation. Preserve temporary notes across filters, mark old review
output stale after edits, and ask before resetting. No CMS integration,
page editing, redirect creation, deletion, or claimed saved audit records.
Use text of at least 16px, labeled keyboard-accessible controls, and
a layout readable at 360px without horizontal scrolling. Put CSS and
JavaScript inline with no external dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Turn the recommendation into a clear handoff
Before acting on C2, ask the owner to review the unique note and the proposed destination. Keep the old-path decision beside the content work so it does not disappear from the handoff.
An HTML audit review in NOS lets you refine the visible recommendation during that discussion. Replace a bare “merge” label with the material to preserve, its destination, and the unresolved path decision. The editor can then carry the agreed work into the maintained website.