Supporting articles

What a supporting article is

A supporting article is a page that takes one narrow question and answers it completely: what the answer is, why, what it depends on, and what to do about it. It links up to the pillar page for the subject it belongs to, and sideways to the two or three sibling pages a reader would want next. Nothing else on it.

It is not a blog post about a subject. A blog post can wander, can be timely, and can end without settling anything. A supporting article has to settle its one question, because that is the whole job. It is also not the same as question-and-answer content, which is shorter still and built almost entirely so that an answer engine can lift it. A supporting article gives the lift-able answer in its first two sentences and then keeps going for the person who wants the reasoning.

Of the three pages in this part of the site, this is the one to buy when you already know which question needs answering. If you do not, start with the pillar, or with a topic cluster plan that tells you what the questions are and in what order to answer them.

When you need one

You need supporting articles when there is a question your customers ask on almost every call and no page of yours answers it. That is the clearest signal there is. The second case is a pillar page that already exists and is carrying too much: sections that have grown to five hundred words and deserve their own page and their own search.

The third is citation. When a search ends in a written summary rather than a list of links, the pages that get quoted inside it are narrow, specific, dated and checkable. A general page about a subject is hard to quote. A page that says what a thing costs in Manitoba, with the date it was checked, is easy to quote.

You do not need one if the question is really a product question that belongs on the product page, or a practical question that belongs in the FAQ page you already have. Splitting a working page into six thin ones makes six pages that each say too little.

What goes in one

Each article is built to the same shape, and the shape is the reason they get cited.

• The answer first. The first two sentences say the answer, in full, without preamble. A reader who stops there has been served, and so has a machine reading for something quotable.
• The reasoning underneath. Why that is the answer, what changes it, and the cases where it is not the answer. This is the part that takes an interview with someone who does the work.
• One checkable fact per claim. A figure, a date, a rule, a named standard, with where it came from and when it was last checked.
• The next step. What the reader should do, including the honest “do nothing yet” case.
• Three links. Up to the pillar, sideways to the siblings a reader would want, and out to the commercial page if the question sits close to a purchase.

What does not go in is an introduction explaining that the subject is important, a definition of a word the reader clearly already knows, or a closing paragraph that repeats the opening one in different words.

What you get

The articles. Usually 700 to 1,200 words each, as editable documents, with headings, the title tag and meta description written, and every internal link marked in place. Ready to paste in, or entered for you as CMS content entry.

The source note for each one. Every figure and dated fact with where it came from, so the page can be checked by a sceptic and refreshed in a year without redoing the research.

The link instruction. One short list per article saying which existing pages should now link to it and with what anchor text. A new article nothing links to is a new article nobody finds.

A worked example

An illustration, not a client. A Halifax firm that installs and certifies backflow preventers has a good pillar page on backflow testing and a phone that rings all day with the same four questions. How often does a device have to be tested. Who is allowed to sign the certificate. What happens if a test is failed. What it costs to replace a device rather than repair it.

Four supporting articles are written, one per question, each opening with the plain answer in two sentences and then giving the reasoning, the municipal rule with the date it was checked, and the cases where the answer differs. Each links up to the pillar and sideways to the other three; the pillar gains four links down. The owner's own measure is not a ranking: the same four questions now get answered by sending a link before the call happens, and two of the pages start appearing as the quoted answer inside written search summaries.

How it runs

1. A half-hour call. Which questions you are asked constantly, what you already have, and whether a pillar exists for them to hang under. No charge.
2. A fixed price in writing. Per article or per batch, agreed before anything starts. Batches cost less per article because the interview is shared.
3. The interview. Forty-five to sixty minutes with whoever answers these questions on the phone, recorded. The reasoning section comes from there and nowhere else.
4. Drafts. Five to eight working days for a batch of four. You check the facts first and the writing second.
5. Revisions and delivery. One round of changes, then the articles, the source notes and the link instructions together.

What it costs

Quoted as a fixed price in CAD after the half-hour call. The number depends on how many articles, how much has to be researched from outside sources rather than taken from your interview, and whether the source notes and link instructions are wanted. The pricing page shows how fixed pricing works here and the published bands for the services that have them.

What happens next

The usual next step is more of the same, working down the list a cluster plan produced, a batch at a time. An internal linking pass makes sure the older pages point at the new ones. Where a page is close to being the quoted answer but buries it, answer restructuring moves the answer to the top. A batch of articles is complete work on its own and nothing further is assumed.