SEO for journalists: make a story findable without changing the facts
Search can reveal real audience questions, but a headline and structure must remain faithful to the reporting.
Start with the public question
Before researching keywords, write what a reader needs to understand. Separate a fast-changing update from a durable explanation. Use recognizable language in the headline and opening, but do not repeat a phrase when it distorts meaning. Study the unanswered questions in existing coverage, then report the answer rather than inventing one from search suggestions.
Make evidence visible
Attribute each important claim, state when it was checked and distinguish confirmed fact from uncertainty. A heading should help navigation, not promise more than the paragraph delivers. Keep a correction record and change the modification date when a substantial review occurs. Reuters emphasizes accuracy ahead of speed and transparent corrections.
Make the page technically legible
Use a stable URL, distinct title, useful description and relevant internal links. Google explains that Article data can identify headline, author and dates; structured data does not replace good reporting or guarantee ranking. Check that text remains readable without scripts, images have alternatives and source links resolve.
Practice pathway
- Reader needWrite the public question the story must answer.
- Verifiable answerSeparate confirmed evidence from facts still unknown.
- Title and structureMatch the title and first paragraph to that answer.
- Sources and datesRecord the original source time and check time.
- Links and markupCheck stable URL, source links and factual Article data.
- Query reviewUse comparable query data without promising rankings.
A piece with clear limits
For the fictional query “how to check a centre’s opening hours”, answer the task in the title and identify the source and check date in the opening. Add a day-by-day table and exceptions. An old timetable does not become current by changing the year in its heading.
Try it
Take one local story and write two entries: a factual update headline and a durable explainer of its central question. Ask another reader to identify what is confirmed, what is background and when the piece was reviewed.
Project deliverable
A reviewed piece, its source sheet and a note explaining what changed.
Download a working template
A pathway, worked example and six checks in an editable file. No account.
Download TXT ↓Review before publishing
Do not turn an old figure, rumor or tentative hypothesis into certainty to attract a click.
Frequently asked questions
Can I enroll through this page?
The 2024–25 catalog informs today’s self-directed guides. No enrollment or accredited qualifications are offered.
What do I need to practise?
Start with this guide’s exercise and template. Use a document for sources and, for audio or video, a device that can record a test you can review. Choose material you have permission to use.
How do I review the result?
Take one local story and write two entries: a factual update headline and a durable explainer of its central question. Ask another reader to identify what is confirmed, what is background and when the piece was reviewed.
Sources and provenance
The example and pathway are new work; historical sources document the former topic, not a current offer.
One assignment, two searches and a maintained page
This fictional brief helps decide what to update before commissioning another piece. It describes neither a real venue nor ranking results.
- Write the reader's action: check a centre's hours before travelling. Identify the existing guide that already answers that task.
- Separate a new fact from a new question. An exception for one day may require revising the guide; it does not require another nearly identical page with a new year in its title.
- Define the evidence and deliverable: official notice, effective date, checked source link and a visible explanation of the exception. Do not invent the hours when confirmation is missing.
Filled brief: searches 'centre opening hours' and 'is the centre open Friday'; required answer: ordinary hours and the confirmed exception for that Friday; deliverable: update the existing guide and retain the source notice. A separate news item needs its own event and reader question rather than another copy of the same table.
Record: reader action __; existing URL __; confirmed fact __; source/date __; exception __; reason to update or create __; final check __. Google's people-first guidance supplies context; this exercise promises no ranking and does not determine how Google will treat the pages.
Source: developers.google.com.
A correction that explains what changed
Accuracy includes explaining a correction. This fictional case reports no real news or Reuters incident. Reuters’ policy supplies the principle of transparent correction; the record below is an new working proposal.
- Locate the wrong assertion and the source that supports a correction. If that source still does not confirm the fact, show the uncertainty instead of inventing a replacement.
- Correct the headline, body, image caption and graphic wherever the error appears. Check ES, CA and EN versions: translating the note while retaining the old assertion is insufficient.
- Add a visible note identifying the error, correct information and time with its zone. Preserve the original publication date; a correction does not make the article newly published.
- Record the evidence and responsible person. Check copies and links you control without promising that every third party will update.
Worked example: an invented story published at 09:00 UTC said a bridge would close on Tuesday. The primary notice confirms Wednesday. Text and headline are corrected at 10:15 UTC. Note: “Correction, 31 October, 10:15 UTC: an earlier version stated Tuesday; the notice specifies Wednesday.” The day is not silently changed, and the note does not claim that the closure already happened.
Reusable record: URL/version __; previous assertion __; source/passage __; replacement __; corrected locations __; language equivalents __; time __; responsible person __; check __. If the error was only in an image, the correction must also explain and replace that image.
Source: reutersagency.com.
