How I work
How I keep a growing portfolio accurate
A page can look finished and still be wrong. I start with the person it serves, then make repeat mistakes easier to catch: a dead path, a hard-to-read phone screen, a changed quote or a page nobody has reviewed.
The real work is deciding what deserves to exist. The checks buy time for that by catching the mistakes I shouldn't have to find twice.
See how it worksThe approach
What holds up when I stop looking
Each step below began with a way a real page could fail. The answer is a repeatable check, followed by my own review where judgment matters.
-
A page starts with a real question
What can go wrong: A page can rank and still leave the person searching without an answer.
I name the reader, their question and the useful next step before writing the page. Then I check that the next step really goes there.
See how one unanswered fan question became a page -
The path through the site works
What can go wrong: An old address or an internal link can quietly strand someone after a site changes.
Every page and internal link is checked against what actually exists. Old addresses are mapped before the move; whether each destination is the right answer still needs my review.
See the work those paths lead to -
The page works on a phone
What can go wrong: A desktop layout can hide an answer, force sideways scrolling or make a button too small to tap.
Every page is opened at phone width. Automated checks catch overflow, low contrast and cramped targets; I still read the screen myself to judge the answer.
Read the plain-English explanation -
My words stay my words
What can go wrong: A copied quote can change by a word and still look authentic.
Lines I published before are compared with their original text. A changed line stops publication until I check it.
Read the personal story -
A shared page makes sense before the click
What can go wrong: The title, image or description in a message can promise a different page from the one that opens.
Each page gets a share image tied to its current title, plus a real description and a path back through the site. I review the small preview by eye.
Browse the writing -
An unfinished page stays unfinished
What can go wrong: A draft can look complete to the publishing system while its claims or wording still need a person.
A page needs its own review before the site can launch. A clean technical check never counts as approval of its story.
How this site is published
After a page goes live
The numbers need a second look too
Across my own sites, I compare search visibility, visits and changes over complete periods. A rising line by itself does not tell me what worked. I note what changed, where the number came from and when it was measured.
That is how a surprising result becomes a useful decision, including when the answer is that an idea did not work.
See the decisions and what happenedPartial months can make ordinary changes look dramatic.
A number is useful only when I can tell where and when it came from.
I can measure what happened. Why it happened may still be a hypothesis.
Times I was wrong, and how I caught it
Getting things wrong is part of building. What matters is how fast I notice, whether I find the real cause, and whether the fix stops it for good. These taught me the most, newest first, including the ones that were simply my bad call.
-
WireRef's chart page stated the wiring code backwards
- How I caught it While fact-checking this site. Codex, my second reviewer, flagged a line about the code; I loaded the live page myself and found the chart page had the rule the wrong way round and left out the breaker limits for small wires.
- What was actually wrong For circuits of 100 amps or less, the code's default is the 60°C column unless the equipment is rated 75°C. The page said the opposite, and its table showed 14-gauge copper at 20 amps without saying the breaker tops out at 15. Every other page on the site had it right, which is exactly why a page-by-page review never caught it.
- The fix Fixed and live the same day.
- What stops it now A new rule in the site's safety checks failed 11 times on the old page and passes on the new one, so this can't come back without the build stopping.
-
I wrote my rules of thumb as if they were industry standards
- How I caught it An accuracy pass that traced every number on this site back to a source. My search intent posts had thresholds, like how many options a comparison page needs, with no source behind them.
- What was actually wrong They were my working rules from building pages, presented as facts. Useful advice with the wrong framing, and a reader can't tell the difference.
- The fix Each post now says plainly that its numbers are my rules of thumb, not published standards. The advice itself stayed.
- What stops it now Numbers in new writing get the same test: a source, or a label that says it's my judgment.
-
My SEO framework was tidier than the way I actually work
- How I caught it I pulled 2.2K of my own messages about how I build sites and sorted them. The patterns didn't fit the fifteen neat pieces I'd published.
- What was actually wrong I'd shaped the framework to look complete before testing it against what I really do.
- The fix Six pillars, built from those messages, are replacing the fifteen pieces.
- What stops it now A framework gets tested against real work before it's published, the same as a page.
-
A WireRef page said a wire carried 200 amps. It carries 180.
- How I caught it A traffic review. I was reading the pages people actually landed on, and the number didn't match the code table the site is built on.
- What was actually wrong The 200 came from a different rule, the wire size the code allows for a whole-home service, borrowed when a lookup came up empty. Right number, wrong table, and on an electrical site that's a safety problem.
- The fix The page, and every page with the same pattern, now uses the right table and labels service sizes as service sizes.
- What stops it now A check now compares every ampacity claim on the site with the code table. It was proven to fail on the old pages before it shipped.
-
My biggest catalog shrank in Google: 1.6K pages indexed, then 218
- How I caught it Search Console's indexing report, which I read every month, so the slide showed up as a trend, not a surprise.
- What was actually wrong Repeated reviews weren't enough to keep every claim safe on a catalog that size. I can measure the decline; the numbers alone don't explain it, and I won't pretend they do.
- The fix A content-integrity sweep, then a build check that stops the site from publishing a known kind of error.
- What stops it now A quality rule only counts once it can fail the build. The next step, stopping the build when the check itself crashes, is written and not shipped yet.
-
I made a release-date answer sound more certain than its sources
- How I caught it A later source check of the Book 9 page, the one fans read most.
- What was actually wrong One claim went further than the sources did. On a page people trusted to separate what's confirmed from what's rumored, that's the one thing it can't do.
- The fix Corrected on August 2.
- What stops it now A tighter check around the page. A dated page now has to stay as careful as its sources.
The record
Mistakes that changed the way I work
In March 2026 I ranked the mistakes from my first launches. Here is that list, next to what I do differently now. Some still depend on a person noticing the problem; I say so.
| What went wrong | What I do here | How far that gets me |
|---|---|---|
1 Fabricated source data published as fact. |
A source and date sit beside each published result. That helps me trace it, but I still have to compare a claim with its original source before approving it. | Needs human review |
2 Safety-critical specs sourced from secondary sites. |
When a page depends on technical specifications, I still have to verify the original source. This site cannot do that judgment for me. | Needs human review |
3 Incomplete data presented as complete. |
A complete-looking page can still leave out an important exception. I review the answer and its limits before calling it ready. | Needs human review |
4 Broken indexation signals at launch. |
Pages need one clear address and a path that search engines can follow. I check both before publication, then inspect live search results after the move. | Caught before publication |
5 Orphan pages and broken navigation shipped on day one. |
Every page needs a route in from another page, and every link has to reach a real destination. | Caught before publication |
6 No validation layer in the build system. |
The site checks its links, visible pages, words and phone layouts before a change can reach the live site. A person still decides whether the result is good. | Caught before publication |
7 Broken search features shipped on launch. Twice. |
There is no search box on this site. If one earns its place later, it will need its own review. | Needs human review |
8 Mobile usability was not entirely verified before launch. |
Every page is opened at phone width before publication. I still read the rendered screen to judge the order and the answer. | Caught before publication |
9 No separation between data and templates. |
Shared numbers come from one source instead of being retyped across pages. That reduces drift; it does not prove the source itself is correct. | Partly covered |
Where judgment stays
A clean check cannot make a page good
It cannot tell whether an industry example is fair to a client, whether a number's cause is known, or whether the first screen says something a reader remembers. I still have to read the page, verify its sources and ask what it leaves out.
That is why I show the misses alongside the wins.
The audit that started this
The first useful step was writing down what I had gotten wrong. The second was finding out which mistakes I could stop repeating.
Read the personal audit