Blog Content Audit Decision Tree: Choose Which Articles to Keep, Improve, Redirect or Retire

A blog content audit is not simply a spreadsheet exercise. It is a decision process that helps you protect valuable organic traffic, resolve keyword cannibalization, remove weak pages and direct your publishing effort towards content with a realistic chance of performing.

The difficult part is rarely finding URLs. The difficult part is deciding what each article should become next.

One page may have strong backlinks but outdated advice. Another may rank for several related queries while quietly competing with three newer posts. A third may attract impressions but no qualified visitors because it targets the wrong search intent. This whole thing needs more judgement than a basic traffic export can provide.

A structured blog content audit decision tree gives you a repeatable way to choose between four actions:

Keep the article largely as it is.
Improve it with a defined optimisation plan.
Redirect it into a stronger, more relevant URL.
Retire it when there is no defensible reason to maintain it.

If you are managing a large site, publishing at scale or dealing with SEO content overlap, an AI workflow such as SEO Letters can help you move from keyword research and content clustering to structured article production, internal links and publishing without the usual copy-paste process.

Why a Content Audit Needs a Decision Tree

Many audits produce long lists of potential actions but no clear prioritisation. Someone marks an article as “needs updating”, another person suggests deleting it, and the final decision gets delayed for months.

That is expensive. Weak pages can consume crawl attention, dilute internal authority and create internal linking conflicts. They can also make it harder for search engines to understand which URL is the preferred result for a topic.

A decision tree creates a shared operating system for content decisions. It asks the same questions in the same order:

Does the URL serve a useful audience or business purpose?
Is it receiving meaningful organic visibility or engagement?
Does it have backlinks, referring domains or historical authority?
Does it match a clear search intent?
Is another article targeting the same keyword or topic?
Can the page be improved without changing its core purpose?
Would consolidation create a stronger resource?
Is there a suitable replacement URL?
If not, is retirement safer than leaving the page live?

The answer should be based on evidence rather than personal preference. A page with low traffic is not automatically a bad page, just as a high-traffic page is not automatically healthy.

The Four Possible Content Audit Outcomes

Before collecting data, define what each outcome means. Otherwise, “improve” becomes a vague holding category where articles remain untouched.

Decision	Suitable when	Typical action	Main SEO risk
Keep	The page performs well, satisfies intent and has no serious overlap	Monitor, maintain and strengthen links	Complacency and gradual decay
Improve	The page has value but weak quality, coverage or performance	Rewrite, expand, update or re-optimise	Changing a page that already works
Redirect	A stronger page can absorb the topic and signals	Apply a relevant 301 redirect and consolidate	Redirecting to an irrelevant URL
Retire	The page has little value, no useful signals and no replacement need	Remove, return an appropriate status or redirect where justified	Deleting a page with hidden value

The fourth option is sometimes called “remove”, “delete” or “prune”. The technical implementation depends on the situation. A page may need a 410 response, a 404 response, a redirect or simply to remain live with a new strategy.

Do not treat these labels as interchangeable.

Step 1: Build a Complete Content Audit Dataset

The decision tree is only as good as the data behind it. Start with a full URL inventory rather than reviewing only pages that already rank.

Your dataset should combine information from:

Google Search Console.
Google Analytics or another analytics platform.
Your SEO crawler.
Backlink tools.
Your content management system.
Keyword tracking software.
Your publishing and conversion records.
Your existing content brief or topical map.

For every blog URL, record the following fields:

Data category	Recommended fields
Identity	URL, title, author, publication date, last update date
SEO visibility	Clicks, impressions, click-through rate, average position
Search demand	Primary query, secondary queries, ranking keywords
Engagement	Sessions, engaged sessions, scroll depth, conversions
Links	Internal links in, internal links out, referring domains, backlink quality
Technical state	Indexability, canonical URL, status code, word count, page speed
Content quality	Accuracy, originality, depth, readability, author signals
Commercial relevance	Product relevance, assisted conversions, lead value
Topic relationship	Parent topic, cluster, similar URLs, suspected overlap
Proposed action	Keep, improve, redirect, retire, needs review

A single metric cannot make the decision. For example, low sessions might indicate low search demand, poor rankings, weak titles, an indexing problem or a mismatch between the article and the query.

That is why a useful audit joins performance data with qualitative review.

Step 2: Segment Articles Before Judging Them

A blog content audit becomes more reliable when you separate URLs into sensible groups. Comparing a five-year-old news post with an evergreen commercial guide creates misleading conclusions.

Useful segments include:

Evergreen informational content.
Product-led content.
Comparison articles.
Glossary and definition pages.
News and time-sensitive posts.
Seasonal content.
Case studies.
Link-building assets.
Author or category archives.
Supporting cluster articles.
Content written for a specific market or language.

This classification changes the benchmark. A seasonal article may perform brilliantly for three months and then appear weak for the rest of the year. A case study might have little search traffic but generate qualified sales conversations.

The question is not, “Does this page receive enough traffic?” It is, “Does this page fulfil the role it was created to fulfil?”

Step 3: Check Whether the Article Has a Valid Purpose

Every page should have a defensible reason to exist. That reason could be organic traffic, product education, thought leadership, conversions, trust, customer support or topical authority.

Ask these questions:

Who is the intended reader?
What problem does the article solve?
What query or need does it address?
Is the information still accurate?
Does it support a product, service or strategic topic?
Does it contribute unique value to the site?
Would a visitor be disappointed if it disappeared?
Is there a stronger page already serving the same need?

If you cannot answer these questions after reviewing the article and its data, place it into the “needs review” queue. Do not retire it immediately. Historical performance, links and brand value may still matter.

The purpose test

Score each URL from 0 to 2 for the following:

Criterion	0 points	1 point	2 points
Audience clarity	No clear audience	Broad or mixed audience	Specific audience and need
Search intent fit	Does not match intent	Partially matches	Strongly matches
Business relevance	No obvious relevance	Indirect relevance	Direct strategic relevance
Content usefulness	Thin or outdated	Some useful information	Strong, actionable resource
Uniqueness	Duplicates another page	Some distinct material	Clearly differentiated

A score of 8 to 10 suggests that the page has a strong foundation. A score of 4 to 7 indicates that improvement or consolidation may be needed. A score of 0 to 3 is a potential retirement candidate, but backlink and traffic checks still matter.

The Core Blog Content Audit Decision Tree

Use the following sequence for each article. It is deliberately conservative. The aim is to protect useful assets while reducing duplication and low-value content.

Decision 1: Is the URL technically eligible to be evaluated?

Check whether the page is:

Indexable.
Canonicalised to itself where appropriate.
Returning a 200 status.
Accessible to users and crawlers.
Included in the correct sitemap.
Free from accidental noindex directives.
Not blocked by robots.txt.
Using the intended language and regional version.

If the page is technically broken, fix the technical issue before judging its content performance. A poor result caused by a noindex tag is not evidence that the article should be retired.

If the page is technically sound, move to Decision 2.

Decision 2: Does it receive meaningful organic visibility?

Review at least the previous 12 months, with shorter windows for new content and seasonal content.

Look at:

Organic clicks.
Impressions.
Average position.
Query diversity.
Branded versus non-branded traffic.
Traffic trend.
Conversion activity.
Country and device distribution.

A page with 30 clicks may be valuable if it ranks in position 11 for a commercially important term. It may also be a problem if those clicks come from irrelevant queries.

Use this classification:

Visibility pattern	Initial interpretation
High clicks, stable rankings	Likely keep, with maintenance
High impressions, low CTR	Improve title, description, format or intent alignment
Rankings between positions 5 and 20	Strong improvement opportunity
Falling traffic after previous success	Refresh and investigate decay
No impressions after a reasonable period	Check demand, indexing and quality
Traffic from irrelevant queries	Reassess topic and search intent

Do not use traffic alone as the retention test. A page that supports conversions, links or brand trust may deserve to stay even with modest organic reach.

Decision 3: Does the article have valuable authority signals?

Review:

Referring domains.
Quality of linking sites.
Number of followed backlinks.
Link relevance.
Internal links from authoritative pages.
Historical traffic.
Mentions and citations.
Social or community references.

Backlinks are not an automatic reason to preserve weak content. They are a reason to handle the URL carefully.

If the article has strong, relevant links, ask whether the existing page can be improved. If not, identify a highly relevant replacement that can inherit the signals through a redirect. Do not redirect every linked URL to the homepage or to a vaguely related category page.

That often creates a poor user experience and may fail to transfer meaningful value.

Decision 4: Does the article match one clear search intent?

Search intent mapping is central to a keyword cannibalization audit. You need to understand what the searcher expects before deciding whether two URLs overlap.

Common intent categories include:

Informational: the user wants an explanation or answer.
Commercial investigation: the user is comparing options.
Transactional: the user is close to taking action.
Navigational: the user wants a specific brand or page.
Local: the user needs a location-based result.
Freshness-led: the answer depends on recent developments.

An article can target a broad keyword and still fail because it offers the wrong format. For example, a search for “best CRM software” implies comparison and evaluation. A 700-word definition of CRM is unlikely to satisfy that intent, even if the keyword appears throughout the page.

Ask:

What does the current search results page reward?
Are results mostly guides, category pages, product pages or videos?
Does the article answer the main question early?
Does the content format fit the query?
Has the intent changed since publication?
Is the article trying to serve more than one audience?

If the page matches intent, move to Decision 5. If it does not, consider improvement or consolidation.

Keyword Cannibalization Audit: Identify True Overlap

Keyword cannibalization happens when multiple pages compete for similar queries or address the same search need in a way that weakens your ability to signal a preferred result.

The phrase is often used too broadly. Two pages can rank for the same keyword without creating a serious problem. Search engines may test several URLs and still select the correct page.

A genuine cannibalization issue is more likely when:

Two pages alternate in the rankings for the same important query.
Both pages have similar intent and audience.
Their content is substantially overlapping.
Internal links point to both URLs using similar anchor text.
Neither page has a clear primary role.
One page is clearly stronger but fails to dominate.
Impressions and clicks are split between near-identical articles.
The site has created duplicate keyword targeting across a cluster.

A practical overlap scoring model

Score two URLs against each other:

Signal	0 points	1 point	2 points
Primary keyword similarity	Different	Related	Nearly identical
Search intent	Different	Partly shared	The same
SERP overlap	Low	Moderate	High
Content similarity	Distinct	Some repeated sections	Substantially duplicated
Audience	Different	Partly shared	The same
Internal anchor targeting	Separate	Mixed	Both targeted similarly

A score of 8 or more deserves a detailed review. A score of 4 to 7 may reflect normal topical relevance rather than harmful cannibalization. A score below 4 is usually not a consolidation case.

Example: two articles competing for one topic

Imagine a site has:

/blog/seo-content-audit
/blog/content-audit-checklist
/blog/how-to-audit-blog-content

All three articles discuss the same process, use similar headings and target overlapping terms. One has backlinks, another has more recent information and the third has the best conversion path.

The correct decision may be to consolidate the strongest information into one authoritative guide, redirect the weaker URLs and create distinct supporting articles for narrower questions. That is a strategic consolidation, not simply deleting two pages.

Decision 5: Is the Article Better Kept or Improved?

Choose Keep when the article already has a clear role and performs at an acceptable level. Minor updates may still be needed, but the URL, topic and primary intent remain valid.

Choose Improve when the page has evidence of opportunity:

It ranks on page two.
It has high impressions but weak click-through rate.
It attracts traffic but fails to convert.
It has strong links but outdated information.
It answers the query partially.
It has poor structure or weak internal links.
It lacks first-hand examples, evidence or expert detail.
It is too broad and needs clearer topical boundaries.
Its title and headings do not reflect the search intent.

A useful improvement brief should define the exact issue. “Make it better” is not a strategy.

What an improvement plan should contain

Target query and intent: Define the main topic and expected format.
Content gap: Identify missing sections, examples, data or expert context.
SERP benchmark: Compare the page with the strongest current results.
Cannibalisation check: Confirm which related URLs should remain separate.
Internal linking plan: Add links from relevant authoritative pages.
Conversion path: Connect the article to an appropriate product or next step.
Trust signals: Review author information, sources, dates and experience.
Measurement plan: Set a baseline and a review date.

For large-scale updates, SEO Letters can support the workflow by researching keywords, mapping topical clusters, generating structured articles and routing stages to your preferred AI provider. You can still apply editorial judgement, fact-checking and brand review before publishing.

Improving Content Without Creating More SEO Content Overlap

A common mistake is expanding every article until it covers the entire topic. That often produces bloated pages which overlap with supporting content and make the site architecture less clear.

Before adding a section, ask:

Does this information directly support the primary intent?
Does another URL already cover it in greater depth?
Would an internal link serve the reader better?
Does the section introduce a new keyword target?
Could the addition make another page redundant?

Sometimes the best improvement is subtraction. Remove a duplicated section, sharpen the article’s purpose and link to a specialist guide.

This is where topical authority needs careful handling. Comprehensive coverage does not mean placing every related keyword on one page. It means building a connected set of pages with distinct roles.

Decision 6: Should Two Articles Be Consolidated and Redirected?

Choose Redirect when two or more URLs should become one stronger resource.

A redirect is usually appropriate when:

The pages have the same primary intent.
They target the same audience.
Their information substantially overlaps.
One page has stronger authority or performance.
The combined version will be more useful.
A clear replacement URL exists.
The old page has no unique value that needs to remain separate.

Select the destination using evidence:

Destination factor	Why it matters
Existing organic performance	Shows that the URL already satisfies demand
Relevant backlinks	Helps consolidate related authority
Better content quality	Provides a stronger base for the merged resource
Clearer URL structure	Reduces future ambiguity
Better conversion relevance	Protects commercial value
Strong internal link position	Supports the broader topic cluster

Do not choose a destination merely because it has the highest traffic. A high-traffic page with a different intent may be the wrong target.

Consolidation workflow

Export both articles and map unique sections.
Identify facts, examples and references worth preserving.
Select the primary URL based on intent, authority and future strategy.
Rewrite the surviving page into a complete, coherent resource.
Remove duplicate or conflicting claims.
Update internal links across the site.
Apply a one-to-one 301 redirect from the retired URL.
Check canonical tags, sitemap entries and status codes.
Monitor rankings, clicks and crawl behaviour.
Keep a record of the change and its rationale.

A redirect is not a substitute for content work. If the surviving page does not contain the valuable information from the old page, the consolidation may weaken the result.

Example: redirect or keep?

Suppose:

Article A has 4,000 annual clicks, 22 referring domains and targets “content audit”.
Article B has 300 annual clicks, two referring domains and targets “blog content audit checklist”.
Both articles share 70 per cent of their sections.
Article B has a useful checklist format that Article A lacks.

The likely action is to improve Article A with the checklist material, preserve the strongest evidence from Article B and redirect B to A. However, if the checklist attracts a different audience and has a distinct downloadable asset, keeping two pages may be reasonable.

The detail matters.

Decision 7: When Should an Article Be Retired?

Retire a page only after checking that it has no meaningful role and no safe consolidation path.

A retirement candidate often has several of these characteristics:

No organic clicks or impressions over a meaningful period.
No relevant backlinks.
No conversions or assisted conversions.
Outdated information that cannot be repaired economically.
No clear search demand.
Thin, repetitive or low-quality content.
No unique insight, research or customer value.
Another page fully replaces its purpose.
No strategic role in the topic cluster.

Before removing it, check:

Does it rank for an unexpected long-tail query?
Does it attract referral traffic?
Is it linked from external sites?
Is it referenced in emails, campaigns or paid activity?
Does it support a product or customer journey?
Is it part of a regional or multilingual experience?
Does it have historical value or brand importance?
Has it been temporarily affected by a technical issue?

If there is no relevant replacement, a 404 or 410 may be more appropriate than a forced redirect. If there is a genuinely equivalent page, use a 301 redirect.

Do not redirect a deleted article to the homepage simply to avoid errors. That creates a soft relevance problem and can make the destination confusing for users.

A Scoring Rubric for Keep, Improve, Redirect or Retire

A scoring system helps teams make consistent decisions, although it should support judgement rather than replace it.

Score each category from 0 to 5:

Category	0	5
Organic performance	None	Strong and stable
Search demand	No viable demand	Clear, valuable demand
Intent alignment	Poor	Excellent
Content quality	Thin or inaccurate	Accurate and authoritative
Backlink strength	None	Relevant, high-quality links
Business relevance	None	Direct commercial or strategic value
Uniqueness	Fully duplicated	Clearly differentiated
Update potential	Not economical	High potential
Conversion contribution	None	Strong contribution

Then interpret the score:

Total score	Likely action
34 to 45	Keep or make a controlled improvement
24 to 33	Improve with a documented brief
14 to 23	Consolidate, redirect or conduct deeper review
0 to 13	Retire unless there is hidden value

Add two override rules:

Strong backlinks require a redirect or preservation review, even if the content score is low.
A serious technical issue must be fixed before final scoring, because performance data may be misleading.

Internal Linking Conflicts After a Content Audit

Content decisions often fail because internal links are not updated after consolidation. The old URL remains linked from dozens of pages, while the new primary article receives little support.

Review internal links for:

Links pointing to redirected URLs.
Multiple pages using the same anchor text for different destinations.
Supporting articles linking to competing URLs.
Orphaned pages that remain strategically important.
Category pages pointing to retired content.
Breadcrumbs and related-post modules using old URLs.
Links that reinforce duplicate keyword targeting.

Create an internal linking map with three levels:

Pillar page: The main comprehensive resource.
Cluster pages: Distinct subtopics with their own search intent.
Supporting pages: Narrow questions, examples, definitions or use cases.

Each link should help clarify the relationship. If three articles all link to different URLs with the anchor text “content audit guide”, the site is sending a mixed signal.

Anchor text should be descriptive but varied. More importantly, the destination should be correct.

Measuring the Results of Content Decisions

A content audit should have a measurement window and a defined baseline. Do not publish a rewrite and decide it failed after five days unless there is a technical emergency.

Track:

Organic clicks.
Impressions.
Average position.
Click-through rate.
Number of ranking queries.
Visibility for the primary query.
Qualified organic sessions.
Assisted conversions.
Leads or revenue.
Internal link clicks.
Crawl status and indexation.
Redirect errors.
Ranking volatility across related URLs.

Use different review periods:

Change type	Initial review	More reliable review
Title or meta description update	2 to 4 weeks	6 to 8 weeks
Major content refresh	4 to 8 weeks	8 to 16 weeks
Consolidation and redirect	4 to 8 weeks	12 to 24 weeks
Content retirement	2 to 6 weeks	8 to 12 weeks
Internal linking changes	3 to 6 weeks	8 to 12 weeks

Seasonality, algorithm changes and wider market demand can affect the results. Compare like-for-like periods where possible.

Recommended performance thresholds

There is no universal traffic target, but you can create operational thresholds based on your own site:

Pages in positions 5 to 20: prioritise for improvement.
Impressions above the site median with below-median CTR: review title and intent.
Organic conversions above the site median: protect and improve carefully.
No impressions after indexation and a suitable period: check demand and technical health.
Several URLs alternating for one target query: investigate cannibalization.
High link equity with poor content: consolidate or rebuild before removal.

These thresholds should be adjusted for site size, sector, search demand and conversion model.

Case Study: Cleaning Up a Cannibalised Blog Cluster

A hypothetical software company has six articles around “content planning”:

Content planning guide.
SEO content planning process.
Monthly content calendar.
Blog content strategy.
Content planning template.
How to plan blog posts.

The pages were published by different teams. They now share similar introductions, headings and keyword targets. Traffic is spread across the cluster, and rankings change every few weeks.

The audit finds:

The guide has the strongest backlinks.
The template has the highest conversion rate.
The monthly calendar ranks for a distinct seasonal query.
The blog strategy article targets a broader strategic audience.
Two short articles have no links and little visibility.

The final decisions could be:

Keep the broad blog content strategy page.
Improve the main content planning guide.
Merge the two short articles into the guide.
Keep the template as a separate conversion-focused asset.
Keep the monthly calendar because its intent is distinct.
Redirect the two redundant pages.
Rewrite internal links so each URL has a clear role.

The result is not fewer pages for the sake of fewer pages. It is a clearer architecture with less SEO content overlap and stronger intent separation.

Using SEO Letters to Operationalise the Audit

An audit identifies what needs to change. You still need a reliable process for researching, briefing, writing, reviewing and publishing the new or improved content.

SEO Letters is designed as a blog writing engine for publishers, SEO teams and businesses that need a repeatable production workflow. It can support:

Keyword research with difficulty ratings.
Search intent and topical analysis.
Topical authority cluster planning.
Competitor site-gap analysis.
Structured article generation.
Brand-aware writing.
Internal link recommendations.
Schema and image preparation.
Multi-language content across 21 languages.
Direct publishing to WordPress, Shopify and webhooks.
Content refresh campaigns.
Autonomous campaign scheduling.
Performance monitoring after publication.

This matters during an audit because improvement work often stalls between the spreadsheet and the live page. You identify 40 URLs, approve 15 briefs and then spend weeks moving content between tools.

With a campaign workflow, you can set a topic, cadence and destination, then review the generated output before publication. Your team brings the strategic judgement, editorial standards and subject expertise. The platform handles much of the repetitive production work.

A practical workflow using SEO Letters

Export the audit URLs and classify them by decision.
Select the pages marked for improvement or consolidation.
Create a topic cluster around the preferred URL.
Review competing content and identify missing coverage.
Generate a detailed brief with target intent and internal links.
Produce the revised article in your brand voice.
Add expert review, evidence and first-hand examples.
Publish or schedule the article to the selected destination.
Redirect or retire the old URL after the replacement is live.
Monitor the performance dashboard and refresh where needed.

For teams publishing frequently, scheduled content refreshes can be more valuable than endless new article production. Old pages often have existing authority, established rankings and known weaknesses, so improving them may be the more efficient growth activity.

Common Content Audit Mistakes

Deleting low-traffic articles automatically

Low traffic can be caused by low demand, poor targeting or weak presentation. It does not prove that the page is useless.

Redirecting every URL to a broad page

A redirect should lead to the closest relevant replacement. A generic destination may not satisfy the old visitor or preserve the original topic relationship.

Treating every shared keyword as cannibalization

Related pages often rank for overlapping terms naturally. Look at intent, SERP overlap, content similarity and ranking behaviour together.

Updating without changing the strategy

Adding 500 words and changing the publication date rarely solves a structural problem. The article may need a different format, a narrower audience or a new conversion path.

Ignoring internal links

A consolidated page needs clear support from the rest of the site. If internal links still favour the old URLs, the architecture remains confused.

Publishing AI content without review

An AI writing platform can accelerate research and production, but accuracy, originality, claims, sources and brand fit still require human oversight. Use the software to reduce production friction, not to remove editorial accountability.

Measuring only rankings

Rankings are useful, but qualified traffic, leads, assisted conversions and engagement may tell you more about business value. A page moving from position 12 to position 8 is encouraging, although it is not the final outcome.

Content Audit Decision Template

Use this template for each URL:

URL:
Current title:
Publication date:
Last updated:
Content type:
Primary topic:
Primary keyword:
Search intent:
Organic clicks, last 12 months:
Organic impressions:
Average position:
CTR:
Conversions:
Referring domains:
Internal links in:
Similar or competing URLs:

Purpose of this page:
Main performance issue:
Evidence of keyword cannibalization:
Unique value worth preserving:
Recommended action:
Replacement URL, if applicable:
Required content changes:
Internal linking changes:
Redirect or retirement method:
Owner:
Review date:
Success metrics:

This keeps the decision auditable. If traffic falls later, your team can see what changed and why, rather than guessing from memory.

Key Takeaway: Use the Least Disruptive Effective Action

A useful rule is to choose the least disruptive action that solves the identified problem.

If the page works, keep it.
If the page has potential, improve it.
If two pages compete for one intent, consolidate and redirect.
If the page has no value and no replacement, retire it.

This sequence protects existing equity while still allowing you to remove waste. It also prevents the common habit of treating every underperforming article as a rewrite project.

Final Checklist for Your Blog Content Audit

Before closing the audit, confirm that you have:

Reviewed every indexable blog URL.
Grouped articles by type, age and purpose.
Checked organic performance across an appropriate period.
Mapped search intent for important queries.
Identified genuine keyword cannibalization.
Reviewed backlinks and historical authority.
Examined internal linking conflicts.
Scored content quality and business relevance.
Selected one clear action for each URL.
Documented consolidation and redirect destinations.
Updated internal links after changes.
Added owners and deadlines.
Set performance benchmarks.
Scheduled a follow-up review.
Created a process for ongoing content refreshes.

A blog content audit should lead to decisions, not another unused spreadsheet. When your team has a clear framework, you can protect strong pages, rebuild worthwhile assets and remove duplication with considerably less risk.

If you are managing a growing content operation and need to turn those decisions into published, structured articles, explore SEO Letters. It brings keyword research, topical authority planning, content writing, internal links, publishing and scheduled refreshes into one workflow, with the rightbar available as the contact path when you need help applying it to your site.