Define the evidence

Choose one reader problem and one proposed improvement, such as clarifying a document-access checklist or making the enquiry route more specific. State what evidence would suggest the change helped. That evidence might include fewer recurring questions, more relevant enquiries or improved completion of a defined task. Avoid promising a causal conclusion from a simple before-and-after comparison when other campaigns or product changes are happening at the same time.

Make it operational

Record the original version, change date, expected effect and observation window. Keep distribution and measurement definitions as consistent as practical. If the sample is small, report the actual counts and qualitative feedback rather than a dramatic percentage alone. Review unintended effects, such as an enquiry form becoming harder to use. Decide whether to retain, revise or reverse the change based on the combined evidence. The goal is a better reader experience, not a permanent claim that one design choice universally increases conversion.

Imagine this

Hypothetical example

A journal replaces a vague enquiry button with a label describing the discussion offered. Over the review period, the team compares the relevance of incoming questions and notes a concurrent event campaign. It keeps the clearer label for usability while avoiding an unsupported claim that the button caused all growth.

Make it practical.

Use this checklist as you read. Checks are not stored.

References & further reading

Further reading: Google people-first content guidance ↗

Published by Tap Tap Go. Product availability and eligibility vary by programme and market. About our stories.