Freshness is not a ranking dial
Editing a page so it looks recent does nothing on its own. What matters is whether the content is currently true, because the failure mode that hurts you is a model confidently repeating something about your business that stopped being accurate months ago.
This makes freshness a correctness problem rather than a publishing-cadence one, and it changes which pages deserve attention.
Three tiers, three cadences
Pages stating facts that change — pricing, capabilities, availability, team — need reviewing whenever the underlying fact changes, not on a schedule. Explanatory pages need reviewing when the subject moves. Opinion pieces age gracefully and mostly need leaving alone.
The stale-fact audit
Once a quarter, list every specific claim on your commercial pages and check each is still true. This is dull and it is the highest-value content work most companies could do, because a wrong number is worse than a missing one once a model starts quoting it.
The dangerous page isn’t the old one. It’s the one that was true when you wrote it.
Consolidate rather than republish
When a topic needs a refresh, the instinct is a new post. Usually the better move is folding the new thinking into the page that already owns the topic — the same reasoning that argues against a separate page for every question. One authoritative page that keeps improving beats a timeline of partial ones.
Signal the change honestly
Where a page has genuinely been revised, say what changed and when. It helps readers, it is verifiable, and it avoids the credibility cost of a site where every page claims to have been updated this month.