FAQ pages: a practical guide

There is no clever trick in this one, just a handful of decisions worth making deliberately. This guide covers what FAQ pages actually involves, where it usually goes wrong, and how to tell whether yours is in reasonable shape.

Content is the part of a project most likely to be underestimated and most likely to delay a launch. Nothing below assumes a large team or a large budget — most of it is a decision somebody has to make and then write down.

The reason this keeps coming up

Answer the questions sales actually gets asked. This is the sort of thing that compounds, quietly, in both directions. Write the reasoning down alongside the decision, because the reasoning is what changes first.

For most businesses the question is not whether this matters but how much of it is worth doing right now. That depends on what you are trying to achieve in the next few months, not on best practice in the abstract. In practice this is a scheduling problem more than a technical one.

Where to start

Do not use it to hide bad news. The reasoning matters more than the rule, because the rule has exceptions. If two people in the business would answer this differently, that gap is the actual problem.

Pages that answer a real question outlive pages written to fill a slot in a sitemap. The version that works in practice is usually less elaborate than the version described in the guides.

Well-structured FAQs can win rich results. It is worth being explicit about, because assumptions differ quietly. The failure mode is not doing it wrong, it is doing it once and assuming it stays done.

A working checklist

If you want a quick read on where you stand, work through this. Anything you cannot answer confidently is where to start.

• Answer the questions sales actually gets asked
• Do not use it to hide bad news
• Well-structured FAQs can win rich results
• Someone is named as the owner, not just assumed to be
• There is a date in the calendar to review it again
• The decision and the reasoning behind it are written down somewhere findable
• You could explain the current setup to a new hire in five minutes

Warning signs

The most common failure is not doing this badly. It is doing it once, during a launch, and never revisiting it. Circumstances move, the setup does not, and the gap widens quietly until something breaks or somebody notices the numbers.

• It was configured during a launch and has not been touched since
• Different people in the business believe different things are true about it
• There is no way to tell whether the last change helped or hurt
• The only person who understands it has left, or is about to

Writing for the web is largely an editing job: the first draft is always longer than it needs to be. This is the sort of thing that compounds, quietly, in both directions.

How we approach it

On our projects this gets handled during the build rather than added afterwards, because retrofitting it costs several times more than including it. We write down what was decided and why, so the next person to touch it is not guessing.

If you are working with someone else, the questions worth asking are simple: who owns this, how will we know it is working, and what happens when it needs to change?

Making it stick

Pick the single item from the checklist above that would cause the most trouble if it turned out to be wrong. Fix that one, confirm it worked, then move on. If you are not sure where your systems currently stand on this, it takes us about an hour to find out.