Content strategy consulting often fails in the gap between planning and publication. A team may identify valuable topics, brief several articles, commission expert input and publish consistently, yet still create competing pages, diluted relevance and unclear ownership across the site.
That is where editorial governance becomes essential. It gives you a repeatable method for selecting reliable sources, reviewing expert contributions, mapping search intent and identifying keyword cannibalisation before it weakens your topical authority. This whole thing is less about adding more approval stages and more about controlling how each page earns its place in the information architecture.
An entity-first content strategy adds another layer. Instead of treating every keyword as an isolated target, you build content around entities, relationships, user problems and topic coverage. The result should be a connected knowledge system where each page has a distinct role.
You can use SEO Letters as your blog writing and publishing engine to support that process. The platform researches keywords, builds topical clusters, drafts structured articles, adds internal linking opportunities and publishes to connected destinations, while your editorial governance framework controls quality, expertise and page differentiation.
What editorial governance means in content strategy consulting
Editorial governance is the system that determines how content is:
- Planned
- Researched
- Written
- Fact-checked
- Reviewed
- Optimised
- Published
- Updated
- Retired or consolidated
In a small business, this might be a simple checklist managed by one person. In a larger organisation, it can involve subject matter experts, legal reviewers, SEO consultants, editors, product teams and external agencies.
The principle remains the same. Every article needs a clear purpose, an accountable owner and a documented review standard.
A governance framework should answer practical questions such as:
- Which sources are acceptable for this subject?
- When is expert review mandatory?
- Which search intent does the page serve?
- What makes this page different from existing content?
- Which entity or topic cluster does it support?
- What internal links should point to and from it?
- When should it be refreshed, merged or removed?
- Which performance signals determine success?
Without these answers, content production can become a volume exercise. More pages are published, but the site becomes harder for search engines and users to understand.
Why this matters for topical authority
Topical authority is not created by publishing dozens of loosely related pages. It develops when a site demonstrates meaningful coverage of a subject, connects related entities and satisfies different stages of the search journey.
For example, a website about business accounting might need content covering:
- VAT registration
- VAT returns
- VAT thresholds
- VAT invoices
- VAT penalties
- Cash accounting
- Flat Rate Scheme
- Making Tax Digital
- Corporation Tax
- Payroll and employer obligations
These topics overlap naturally. That makes editorial governance particularly important. A page about VAT registration should not quietly become a second guide to VAT thresholds, while a page about VAT penalties should not repeat the full process covered by a dedicated compliance article.
The content plan needs structure. Otherwise, you may create duplicate keyword targeting, weak internal linking and several competing pages in SEO.
The entity-first model for editorial governance
An entity-first strategy begins with the subject itself rather than a list of keyword phrases. You identify the core entity, its attributes, associated entities, user tasks and commercial relationships.
For a software company selling project management tools, the central entity may be project management software. Related entities could include:
- Task management
- Gantt charts
- Agile project management
- Resource planning
- Team collaboration
- Project reporting
- Workflow automation
- Time tracking
- Software integrations
- Project management methodologies
Each entity can support several types of content, but those pages should not all target the same search intent.
A useful governance model separates each proposed page into five fields:
| Governance field | Question to answer | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Primary entity | What is the page mainly about? | Project management software |
| Supporting entities | Which related concepts must be explained? | Task management, reporting, integrations |
| Search intent | What does the user want to do? | Compare tools before buying |
| Page role | What job does this URL perform? | Commercial comparison page |
| Differentiation rule | Why should this page exist separately? | Focuses on tools for distributed teams |
This model reduces SEO keyword overlap because the team evaluates meaning, purpose and relationships, not just exact-match phrases.
Entity relationships are more useful than keyword lists
A keyword list may contain:
- Best project management software
- Project management tools
- Top project management platforms
- Project software for teams
- Project management app
Those phrases appear different, but they may represent one broad commercial intent. Creating a separate page for each phrase could result in five URLs competing for similar rankings.
An entity-first approach asks:
- Is there one underlying audience?
- Is the user comparing products?
- Do the results pages show similar content formats?
- Can one authoritative page satisfy the full need?
- Are there meaningful subgroups that deserve their own pages?
This is where search intent mapping becomes a governance requirement rather than an optional SEO exercise.
Source selection: the first control in a credible content process
Source selection influences every stage that follows. Weak sources lead to weak claims, unclear expertise and unnecessary revision work. The issue is not simply whether a source ranks highly. A high-ranking page may be outdated, derivative or unsuitable for a regulated subject.
Your source framework should consider:
- Authority
- Relevance
- Recency
- Primary evidence
- Editorial transparency
- Geographic applicability
- Methodological quality
- Commercial bias
A practical source hierarchy
Use a tiered source model so writers and software systems know what to prioritise.
| Source tier | Typical examples | Recommended use |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Government departments, regulators, official standards bodies, original research | Legal, regulatory, health, financial and technical claims |
| Tier 2 | Universities, professional institutes, recognised industry bodies | Definitions, frameworks and expert interpretation |
| Tier 3 | Established publishers, specialist journals, credible businesses | Market context, examples and practical guidance |
| Tier 4 | Community discussions, forums and social posts | User language, questions and emerging concerns |
| Tier 5 | Unsourced summaries and low-quality aggregators | Discovery only, not evidence |
This does not mean every sentence requires a citation. It means important claims should be traceable to appropriate evidence.
For a financial guide, an official government source may establish the current threshold or filing requirement. An accountant’s commentary can then explain common implementation problems. A forum thread might reveal that users confuse two forms, but it should not be treated as definitive proof.
Source selection rules for SEO content
A source should pass a simple relevance test before it enters the brief:
- Does it directly address the subject?
- Is it current enough for the claim being made?
- Does it come from a person or organisation with relevant expertise?
- Is the evidence original, or is it repeating another source?
- Could a reasonable reader verify the claim?
- Is the source appropriate for the target market and jurisdiction?
- Does it introduce a perspective that improves the page?
The final question matters. Collecting sources is not the same as producing useful content. Five pages repeating one another do not create five independent insights.
Source notes should be attached to claims
A good editorial brief records more than URLs. It should note:
- The claim supported
- The section where the source will be used
- The publication or update date
- Any limitations
- Whether expert verification is required
- Whether the source is primary or secondary
This reduces the chance that a writer uses a source for a claim it does not actually support. It also makes future content refreshes faster because the reviewer can see which evidence needs checking.
Expert review: how to add expertise without creating an approval bottleneck
Expert review is often misunderstood. It does not mean an industry specialist rewrites every paragraph. In a scalable process, the expert validates the claims, identifies risk, corrects technical inaccuracies and adds practitioner context.
The editor still owns clarity and structure. The expert protects accuracy.
When expert review is essential
Expert review should be mandatory where content could influence a significant decision or where an inaccurate statement may cause harm. Typical examples include:
- Medical and health information
- Financial guidance
- Legal and compliance topics
- Cybersecurity advice
- Technical implementation instructions
- Employment and HR policy
- Safety-related content
- Product claims that require evidence
For lower-risk topics, an experienced editor may be sufficient, although subject matter input can still improve depth and usefulness.
Use a defined expert review brief
Experts often provide comments that are either too broad or too narrow. A defined review brief gives them a clear job.
Ask the reviewer to assess:
- Accuracy: Are the factual claims correct?
- Completeness: Is a material caveat missing?
- Currency: Has legislation, guidance or accepted practice changed?
- Terminology: Are specialist terms used correctly?
- Practicality: Would the recommended process work in real conditions?
- Risk: Could a reader misunderstand the advice?
- Original insight: Is there a useful point that generic research missed?
Ask for comments against specific passages. “Needs more detail” is not an actionable review note.
A review scoring rubric
You can score each draft before publication. This makes editorial decisions more consistent across teams.
| Area | 1 point | 3 points | 5 points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source quality | Mostly weak or unclear | Mixed quality | Strong, relevant and traceable |
| Search intent fit | Vague or mismatched | Generally appropriate | Directly satisfies the dominant intent |
| Expert accuracy | Several concerns | Minor corrections | Accurate and appropriately qualified |
| Entity coverage | Isolated keyword treatment | Some related concepts | Clear entity relationships and complete context |
| Differentiation | Similar to existing pages | Some unique value | Distinct purpose and meaningful original insight |
| Internal linking | Minimal or random | Some relevant links | Strategic links within a logical cluster |
| Conversion relevance | No clear next step | Softly related offer | Strong, contextually appropriate action |
| Update readiness | Sources unclear | Some documentation | Claims, dates and owners clearly recorded |
Set a minimum publication threshold. For example, a regulated topic might require at least 4 out of 5 for source quality, accuracy and search intent fit.
A scoring system does not replace professional judgement. It gives that judgement a visible structure.
Keyword cannibalisation: what it is and what it is not
Keyword cannibalisation occurs when multiple pages on the same website target substantially similar search intent and compete for visibility, links, clicks or conversions.
It is not simply a situation where two pages mention the same keyword. Large sites naturally use related terms across multiple pages. The problem appears when search engines receive unclear signals about which URL should rank for a particular query.
Common signs include:
- Rankings switching between URLs
- Impressions distributed across several similar pages
- One page ranking for another page’s intended keyword
- Low click-through rates across overlapping URLs
- Internal links pointing to different pages for the same topic
- Pages with thin or nearly identical coverage
- Search Console queries appearing across several URLs
- Backlinks divided between pages that serve the same purpose
The underlying issue is usually strategic. The site has not clearly assigned ownership of the topic.
SEO keyword overlap versus true cannibalisation
Some keyword overlap is normal and useful. A guide about “email marketing strategy” may mention “email segmentation”, while a specialist article about segmentation links back to the broader guide.
That is not automatically cannibalisation because the pages have different roles.
| Situation | Likely interpretation | Recommended action |
|---|---|---|
| Two pages rank for related but different intents | Healthy topical coverage | Keep both and strengthen internal links |
| One guide and one checklist cover the same task | Possible overlap | Clarify format and audience |
| Two commercial pages target the same product category | High cannibalisation risk | Consolidate or differentiate |
| A product page and an informational guide share terms but have different intent | Usually acceptable | Improve intent signals and linking |
| Older page ranks for the newer page’s target term | Governance failure | Review ownership, redirects and links |
| Several pages repeat the same definitions and advice | Likely duplication | Merge, prune or assign distinct angles |
The test is not “Do these pages use the same word?” The test is “Would the same user be satisfied by either page for the same reason?”
The keyword cannibalisation audit checklist
A cannibalisation audit should combine crawling data, search performance and editorial judgement. No single tool gives the full answer.
Step 1: Build a complete URL and keyword inventory
Export the site’s indexable URLs, then record:
- URL
- Title
- H1
- Canonical URL
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Primary keyword
- Secondary keywords
- Main entity
- Search intent
- Content type
- Conversion goal
- Organic clicks
- Impressions
- Average position
- Backlinks
- Internal links
If the information does not exist, that itself is a governance finding. You cannot reliably manage content ownership when the content inventory is incomplete.
Step 2: Group pages by topic and entity
Do not sort only by keyword. Group pages around the entities they describe.
For a recruitment website, one group might include:
- Recruitment software
- Applicant tracking systems
- Candidate sourcing tools
- Interview scheduling software
- Recruitment CRM
- Hiring automation
Then identify whether each URL covers a category, use case, feature, comparison, definition or implementation problem.
This reveals duplicate keyword targeting that a spreadsheet sorted alphabetically may hide.
Step 3: Map search intent
Assign each page an intent label:
- Informational
- Commercial investigation
- Transactional
- Navigational
- Local
- Support or troubleshooting
Then add a more specific task description, such as:
- Learn the definition
- Compare providers
- Choose software for a team size
- Follow a setup process
- Resolve an error
- Check a legal requirement
Two pages may both be informational but still serve different tasks. One could explain what a CRM is, while another compares CRM systems for charities. The distinction needs to be clear in the brief, title, headings and internal links.
Step 4: Compare live search results
Search the most important target queries and record which pages appear. Look for patterns:
- The same two URLs alternate positions
- Google shows a page that was not assigned the keyword
- Several pages appear for similar queries
- The content format varies between your pages
- Competitors rank with a single consolidated guide
- Your pages have overlapping titles and headings
Search results are useful evidence because they show how the search engine currently interprets the topic. They are not absolute proof, though. Seasonality, location, personalisation and algorithm changes can affect the results.
Step 5: Review Search Console data
Export queries and pages from Google Search Console. Filter for:
- Queries with multiple ranking URLs
- URLs receiving impressions but few clicks
- Pages with similar average positions
- Important terms where the wrong URL receives clicks
- Sudden performance changes after publishing a related article
A query associated with multiple URLs is a signal, not a verdict. Sometimes Google intentionally shows different pages for different variations of a broad topic.
Step 6: Score the overlap
Use a simple rubric to prioritise action.
| Factor | Low risk | Medium risk | High risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Search intent similarity | Different tasks | Partly similar | Same task |
| Topic similarity | Related entities | Significant overlap | Nearly identical |
| SERP URL switching | Stable URL | Occasional change | Frequent change |
| Content similarity | Distinct sections | Repeated explanations | Substantial duplication |
| Internal linking | Clear hierarchy | Mixed signals | Conflicting anchors |
| Conversion goal | Different actions | Some overlap | Same action |
Prioritise pages that score high across several categories. Do not merge pages solely because they share a keyword.
What to do when you find competing pages in SEO
A cannibalisation audit is only useful when it leads to a controlled decision. There are five common actions.
1. Consolidate and redirect
Merge pages when they serve the same audience, intent and purpose. Keep the stronger URL based on:
- Organic traffic
- Backlink quality
- Ranking history
- Conversion performance
- Content depth
- URL simplicity
- Historical relevance
Move the best information into one stronger page, update its title and structure, then apply a relevant 301 redirect from the retired URL.
Do not redirect a page to an unrelated article simply because it has a similar keyword. The destination should satisfy the original user need.
2. Differentiate the pages
Keep both pages when there is a genuine strategic distinction. Make that distinction visible.
For example:
- “Project management software” can target broad commercial comparison.
- “Project management software for construction” can target a sector-specific buying need.
- “How to choose project management software” can target the evaluation process.
- “Project management software pricing” can target cost research.
Differentiation should appear in the title, introduction, headings, examples, internal links and conversion path. Changing only the title is rarely enough.
3. Reassign keyword ownership
Sometimes the pages are useful, but the wrong URL is treated as the primary resource. Assign one canonical owner for the main topic, then change supporting pages to target narrower subtopics.
This is especially effective for content hubs. The pillar page covers the entity at a broad level, while supporting pages answer specific questions and link back using relevant, varied anchor text.
4. Improve internal linking signals
Internal links help search engines understand relationships and priority. Link supporting pages to the primary resource, and link the primary resource to the most important supporting pages.
Review:
- Anchor text
- Link placement
- Number of links
- Context surrounding the link
- Whether navigation links point to competing URLs
- Whether orphan pages are receiving enough authority
Internal linking is not a substitute for distinct content. It works best when the information architecture already makes sense.
5. Retire low-value content
Some pages should be removed. Candidates may include:
- Outdated announcements with no ongoing value
- Thin pages with no impressions or links
- Near-duplicate articles
- Pages created only to target minor keyword variations
- Content that no longer reflects the product or service
- Articles with no defined audience or business purpose
Use a 410 status where appropriate, or redirect to the most relevant replacement. Document the decision so the same page does not return six months later under a slightly altered title.
Editorial governance for preventing future cannibalisation
The best audit is the one you do before publication. Add an overlap check to the content brief and require an answer to a few specific questions.
Pre-publication cannibalisation questions
Before approving a new article, ask:
- Which existing URL is closest to this proposed topic?
- What user task does the new page serve?
- Why is that task not already satisfied?
- Which entity is the new page primarily about?
- What would make the page meaningfully different?
- Which URL owns the broader topic?
- What internal links will define the hierarchy?
- Should the proposed page replace, expand or support an existing page?
- What conversion action should the reader take?
- When will the page be reviewed after publication?
If the team cannot explain the difference in one or two precise sentences, the brief needs more work.
A page ownership register
Maintain a central register for important topics.
| Topic entity | Primary URL | Supporting URLs | Search intent | Owner | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keyword research | /keyword-research/ |
/keyword-difficulty/, /keyword-mapping/ |
Informational and commercial | SEO lead | Quarterly |
| Content automation | /content-automation/ |
/automated-blog-writing/, /content-workflows/ |
Commercial investigation | Content lead | Quarterly |
| Topical authority | /topical-authority/ |
/topic-clusters/, /entity-seo/ |
Informational | Strategy lead | Six-monthly |
This register is basic, but it can prevent duplicate briefs from entering production. It also gives writers and reviewers a shared reference point.
How SEO Letters supports this governance model
SEO Letters helps turn editorial governance into a repeatable publishing workflow, particularly for teams managing multiple sites, languages or publishing schedules.
The platform can support several stages of the process:
- Keyword research with difficulty ratings
- Topical authority cluster development
- Competitor and site-gap analysis
- Structured article generation
- Headings and semantic topic coverage
- Internal linking opportunities
- Schema generation
- Image recommendations
- Product-aware content
- Direct publishing to WordPress, Shopify and webhooks
- Content refresh campaigns
- Performance monitoring
You can bring your own AI keys and route different stages to Gemini, OpenAI or Claude. That gives your team more control over model selection, workflow design and operating costs.
The important point is that the software is not being asked to replace editorial judgement. It handles the repetitive movement between research, drafting, optimisation and publication, while your governance rules define acceptable sources, expert checks and page ownership.
Use campaigns to control content production
SEO Letters’ autonomous campaign scheduler lets you define:
- A topic or topical cluster
- A publishing cadence
- A destination
- Language requirements
- Product or affiliate context
- Content refresh instructions
The system can then research, write and publish according to the campaign settings. This is useful when you have a clear governance framework and need consistency at scale.
A campaign should not be launched with a vague instruction such as “write about digital marketing”. Give it an entity map, priority topics, excluded subjects, target markets, source rules and conversion goals.
That is where the quality difference tends to appear.
A practical workflow for combining source selection, expert review and the audit
Use the following process for each strategic content cluster.
Step 1: Define the entity and commercial context
Write down:
- The central entity
- Related entities
- Audience segments
- User problems
- Products or services connected to the topic
- Geographic and regulatory scope
- Business outcome
For example, the entity could be “content strategy consulting”. Supporting entities might include editorial governance, keyword mapping, topical authority, content audits and expert review.
Step 2: Create a search intent map
Group queries by the task behind them.
| User stage | Example query | Suitable page |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | What is editorial governance? | Educational guide |
| Problem recognition | Why are my pages competing? | Cannibalisation diagnosis |
| Evaluation | Content strategy consultancy | Service page |
| Implementation | How to run a keyword cannibalisation audit | Process guide |
| Action | Automated SEO content platform | Product page |
This prevents a service page from trying to rank for every informational phrase and stops an educational article from carrying an unclear sales message.
Step 3: Check existing URLs before drafting
Use a crawl export, Search Console data and a manual SERP review. Identify pages that:
- Use the same primary keyword
- Cover the same entity
- Have the same title pattern
- Attract similar queries
- Link to the same conversion page
- Appear in the same search results
Record the decision in the brief. “No overlap found” is not enough. Note which pages were checked.
Step 4: Select and document sources
Assign sources to claims and sections. Mark high-risk claims for expert review.
For example:
- Government guidance for a legal requirement
- A recognised SEO platform for performance methodology
- A technical specialist for implementation detail
- First-party product documentation for software functionality
- Customer evidence for workflow outcomes
Avoid making unsupported claims about rankings, traffic or guaranteed results. SEO performance depends on competition, technical health, authority, intent alignment and many external factors.
Step 5: Generate the draft within the approved structure
SEO Letters can produce a structured first draft with headings, internal links, schema and images. The brief should still specify:
- Primary page role
- Target audience
- Main entity
- Search intent
- Required evidence
- Excluded topics
- Internal link destinations
- Call to action
- Review level
This keeps automated generation inside the governance system instead of allowing each article to invent its own strategy.
Step 6: Complete expert and editorial review
The editor checks the overall argument, readability, SEO structure and differentiation. The subject expert reviews technical accuracy and practical risk.
Keep these responsibilities separate where possible. An expert may understand the subject deeply but still miss duplicated headings, weak internal links or a misaligned title.
Step 7: Publish with technical controls
Before publication, check:
- Canonical URL
- Indexability
- Title and meta description
- Heading hierarchy
- Structured data
- Internal links
- Image alt text
- Author and reviewer details
- Last updated date
- Redirects from replaced content
- Destination links and calls to action
If the article is part of a cluster, add links to the parent and relevant sibling pages. Make the relationship useful to the reader.
Step 8: Monitor and review
Review performance after a reasonable period based on the site’s authority and publishing history. Track:
- Impressions
- Clicks
- Average position
- Click-through rate
- Ranking URL stability
- Organic conversions
- Assisted conversions
- Engagement signals
- New backlinks
- Query expansion
- Cannibalisation indicators
For established sites, a monthly review may be appropriate. New pages on smaller sites may need a longer evaluation window.
Hypothetical example: fixing overlap in a B2B software cluster
Imagine a B2B software company with these pages:
/workflow-automation//workflow-automation-tools//best-workflow-automation-software//automated-workflows/
All four pages discuss automation platforms, workflow design and integration features. Their titles differ slightly, but the search intent is almost identical.
Search Console shows that Google alternates between three of the URLs for “workflow automation software”. Organic clicks are divided, while none of the pages has a strong conversion rate.
The audit produces this decision:
- Keep
/workflow-automation/as the broad educational pillar. - Consolidate
/workflow-automation-tools/and/best-workflow-automation-software/into a commercial comparison page. - Redirect
/automated-workflows/after preserving any unique implementation guidance. - Create a new supporting article focused specifically on workflow automation examples by industry.
The result is a clearer architecture. One page explains the entity. One compares solutions. One supports implementation with examples. The pages can still share vocabulary because their jobs are now different.
Metrics for measuring editorial governance
Editorial governance should be measured through operational and organic indicators.
Content quality metrics
Track:
- Percentage of articles passing expert review
- Source correction rate
- Number of factual revisions after publication
- Content score by cluster
- Percentage of pages with documented ownership
- Review completion time
- Percentage of pages with an update date
Cannibalisation metrics
Monitor:
- Number of topic groups with multiple ranking URLs
- Ranking URL volatility
- Queries with two or more competing pages
- Click distribution across overlapping URLs
- Number of consolidation decisions
- Redirect success rate
- Growth in the primary page’s impressions and clicks
Business metrics
Connect content decisions to:
- Organic leads
- Product sign-ups
- Assisted conversions
- Revenue influenced by organic sessions
- Conversion rate by content type
- Cost per published article
- Time from brief to live page
- Refresh output versus new content output
Publishing more pages is not a sufficient KPI. A stronger measure is whether the site is gaining qualified visibility around strategically important entities.
Common governance mistakes to avoid
Treating every keyword as a separate article
This creates duplicate keyword targeting and an inflated editorial calendar. Keywords should be clustered by intent, entity and SERP similarity before they become page ideas.
Letting the highest-ranking source define the whole article
Ranking sources are useful competitive evidence, but they may contain omissions or errors. Use primary sources and expert insight to improve the result instead of reproducing the current search landscape.
Asking experts to approve without a brief
Experts need defined review criteria. Without them, the process becomes slow and comments can conflict with the editorial objective.
Assuming canonical tags solve cannibalisation
A canonical tag is a technical signal, not a strategy. If two pages are both valuable and target the same intent, canonicalisation may hide rather than solve the underlying issue.
Merging pages without preserving evidence
A rushed consolidation can remove backlinks, useful sections and ranking history. Review each URL’s traffic, links and conversions before choosing the destination.
Publishing automated content without a human control layer
Automation can increase production speed. It can also scale weak briefs, unsupported claims and repetitive pages if no governance exists.
Use the software for the workflow. Keep accountability with named people.
Key takeaway: editorial governance is a growth system
A strong content strategy consulting process combines three controls:
- Source selection protects factual quality and evidence.
- Expert review protects accuracy, trust and practical usefulness.
- Keyword cannibalisation auditing protects search visibility and page ownership.
Entity-first planning connects the three. It shows what each page is about, which related concepts it should cover and how it fits into the wider topical authority structure.
If you’re producing content regularly, you need more than an editorial calendar. You need a system that identifies gaps, prevents overlap, supports review and keeps publishing consistent. SEO Letters provides the automated blog writing, clustering, linking and publishing workflow for that system, including scheduled campaigns and content refreshes for existing pages.
Use the rightbar as the contact path if you need help assessing your current content structure, identifying competing pages in SEO or planning a governed topical authority campaign. The aim is straightforward: fewer disconnected articles, clearer page roles and a publishing operation that can improve over time.
Leave a Reply