Content ROT: another library adventure
Kai Schreiber from Münster, Germany, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
In 2021, Stanford Web Services (SWS) conducted an audit of the Stanford Libraries website, paving the way for a redesign. The audit unearthed a staggering 22,000+ pages and exposed a pressing need for improved governance over library web content.
Following the audit, SWS recommended initiating a project to establish governance protocols. Entrusted with this initiative, the Stanford Libraries web team appointed me to lead the charge.
The deliverable
Armed with copious amounts of coffee and insights gleaned from a Google deep dive, I returned to the team with a proposal: let’s model and recommend a process to identify and review ROT (Redundant, Outdated, Trivial Content).
The idea of addressing “redundant” and “trivial” content raised some eyebrows among my colleagues. As one wryly put it, “Librarians specialize in the redundant and trivial.” Though I didn’t, and don’t, share this sentiment, we decided to focus on identifying outdated content. This approach would set a new standard for ongoing content maintenance and, maybe, just maybe, pave the way for future review of redundant and trivial content.
The review
In our review, I discovered 17,000 auto-generated stub pages, empty and ready for deletion—a significant early win that underscored the importance of content governance to our library leadership team. However, approximately 5,000 pages still remained. More than half of these sported dates —a telltale sign that these pages could be outdated or could soon become outdated.
Page type
To tackle these pages, my colleagues and I on the Stanford Libraries’ web team developed strict criteria to flag suspect content:
Events over a year old
Blogs posted more than three years ago
Pages dormant for over three years
Orphaned pages lacking links within the Stanford Libraries site
Content created or last updated by personnel no longer affiliated with Stanford Libraries
Applying these criteria, we identified thousands of pages needing closer scrutiny.
Navigating this ocean of content was no small task. We adopted a focused approach, closely examining a sample of flagged pages to assess accuracy and identify responsible parties for updates. This task proved challenging. Many of the pages contained specialized content outside of our expertise, meaning we couldn’t tell if the content was accurate. Moreover, many pages didn’t have a clear owner for us to consult.
The takeaways
From this exercise in reviewing ROT, we gained valuable insights that shaped our recommendations to library leadership for effective content management.
One key lesson was the critical importance of content ownership. Given the sheer volume and specialization of pages, delegating review tasks to content creators emerged as essential. Additionally, we believed that assigning dedicated owners would ensure accountability and foster a personal commitment to maintaining accuracy over time.
Another crucial takeaway was the necessity of automated archival processes. Establishing protocols to archive outdated content—such as events older than a year or blog posts older than three years—would keep our digital space current and user-focused while preserving our historical record.
Implementing notifications emerged as another effective strategy. Reminders for content owners regarding overdue updates or orphaned pages would help prevent content from becoming stale or overlooked. This proactive approach would ensure our digital space remained dynamic and relevant.
The Stanford Libraries web content governance project laid a foundation for systematic content review and management. Now… is it time to tackle that debate about redundant and trivial content yet?
