Content Model Your Way to a Less Chaotic Web Presence

How to create a living document to govern your library web content

Posted on December 1, 2025 in Blog Posts

You updated your borrowing information six months ago to reflect a change in fee structure, and now you discover the original (outdated) content is still alive and well in a LibGuide maintained by the front desk staff. You have a series of “Hours & Locations” pages for each of your main branches—except the branch that’s gone off and built a separate website on a totally different platform. A “citation help” FAQ points to a “citation help” webpage that points back to the FAQ—and neither entry actually tells a user how to get help.

Content chaos can feel like a way of life for web librarians. We’re juggling multiple platforms with different governance models and a distributed ownership structure where everyone plays a role but no one has the full picture. Some corners of our web presence are tightly controlled; others are an organic jumble of pages created by individual librarians with little oversight. The result? Duplication, contradictions, and a confusing maze for patrons.

We dream of a world where our content is discoverable, logically interrelated, current, accurate, and consistent, but getting there with the limited tools and authority granted to us can feel impossible.

Enter the cross-platform content model. This is a living governance document that articulates what kinds of information the library produces (content types), defines the strengths and weaknesses of the platforms available to host that information (content platforms), and maps them systematically. It’s a document you cocreate with colleagues across your library to arrive at a consensus-driven approach to library web content. I’ve used this method at two different institutions to bring clarity to the chaos of library web content. Read on to learn how you can do the same!

Why a content model?

A content model is a road map that removes ambiguity when deciding how to position new and existing content on the web. It gives you a clear answer to the question “Where should we put this?”—every time. The act of creating the model is illuminating and engaging, and the end product is a tool that improves clarity for both patrons and content authors/owners. A content model operationalizes content strategy by reducing friction in decision-making and producing a more streamlined, internally consistent web ecosystem.

A warning before we dive in: The single most important aspect of content modeling is that it is consensus-driven. A model developed and imposed exclusively by the web team will not thrive. To achieve goodwill and buy-in, you need your colleagues to own the logic of this model. To that end, I highly recommend completing the following steps collaboratively, involving content authors and stakeholders from across your organization.

---

🔥 Stay up-to-date with LibTech Insights by signing up for our free newsletter. Just one weekly email with our new blog posts, top tech news stories, and other bonus content. Check out some posts from our archive:

• Quest for the Perfect ERM: Using Airtable to Manage Electronic Resources
• Balancing User Needs and Technology during Migration Planning
• Giving Up the Good Fight?: Librarians and Information Literacy

📹 Register now for our upcoming webinar, “‘Data’ and Indigenous Studies: Entry Points for Academic Libraries”

---

Stage 1: Identify your content types

A content type describes the purpose your content is serving for users. It’s not about what the content is about (its subject), it’s about what it’s for (its function). For instance, a page about interlibrary loans is for helping patrons understand and use library services.

With select colleagues, perform these steps:

• Conduct a sample. Pull a generous random sample of existing webpages from across your various platforms into a spreadsheet.
  
  
• Craft goal statements. For each page, ask: Why would a user come here? What changes for them after interacting with this content? Craft a brief goal statement from the user’s perspective. Remember to focus on the content’s function, not its subject—this distinction trips people up!
  
  
  • Try using the phrase “I want to… so I can…”. Example: I want to understand how loan periods work so I can follow the rules and not be fined.
• Identify content types. Goal statements will start to seem very similar after a while. For instance, you’ll very likely have a whole bunch of pages whose “function” is to help patrons understand how basic library services work. Once you have several similar goal statements (differing in what they’re about, but not what they’re for), congratulations, you have a content type!  
  
  
  • The level of granularity you use for your content types is up to you (and it might change when you get to Stage 3 and start to actually build your model).
    
    
  • Example: We created one “operational” content type for any page that explains a basic function of library services, resources, or spaces. You may find you want to treat those three elements separately. It’s okay for this process to be iterative and flexible.
    
    
  • You may find that some pages have more than one content type. That’s okay! You’re not really concerned with the existing structure of the content right now—you’re just capturing the types of content your library shares online.
• Reach saturation. Keep going until you’re not identifying new types.
  
  
• Create an artifact. Create a list of your content types, ideally with some explanatory information to help make the types comprehensible to folks who weren’t participating in the process.

Sample worksheet for Stage 1:

Content type	Description	User goal	Examples
Name of the type	Defining features of the content type	Statement from the user’s perspective about the sort of thing they can accomplish on this page. (I want to… so I can…)	URLs for exemplar pages in your current web ecosystem
Operational	Explanation of an operational aspect of the library.	“I want to understand how the library works so I can use its spaces, services, or resources.”	Interlibrary loan page
Informational / Educational	Explanation of a scholarly concept.	“I want to understand a concept so I can complete my research or assignment.”	Page about planning a search strategy.
Technical guide	Instructions and tips for using a single platform or tool	“I want to understand how a system works so I can use it effectively.”	Guide to using the library’s discovery layer.

Stage 2: Evaluate your content platforms

For this stage, focus specifically on those platforms where you create content, as opposed to those where you host content. For example, your LibGuides should definitely be included, but your institutional repository probably should not (unless for some reason you’re putting your library operational information there!).

• Identify your content platforms. Create a table with columns for “Platform,” “Pros,” “Cons,” and “Implications.” Add rows for your content platforms.
  
  
  • Tip: It might be helpful to check in with librarians and staff to see if they’re using any rogue platforms you’re unaware of (GitHub? WordPress?).
• Evaluate strengths and weaknesses. For each platform, brainstorm the things that make it great to work with (pros) and the things that make it frustrating or risky (cons). Consider both technical and social/political factors.
  
  
  • Example: It’s a “pro” to work with a platform that you have complete control over, versus one that’s controlled by your university comms team. It’s a “con” to work in a platform that requires complex onboarding.
  • Observations do not rigidly need to belong to one column or the other; pro/con is just a useful shorthand to surface important factors. Is having an egalitarian platform that all librarians can freely publish on a pro or a con? It probably depends on your perspective!
• Draw out the implications. Your factor lists should lead to some pretty clear implications about the sorts of content that fit well (or really don’t fit well) in each platform. Fill those out last.
  
  
  • Example: A platform that features a strong blogging module is probably a better option for units to share news than a static page-based CMS.

Show your work and include multiple perspectives. You’re going to use the factors identified here as the basis for justifying content placement decisions going forward.

Sample notes for Stage 2 (pro/con lists are not comprehensive)

Platform	Pros	Cons	Implications
Cascade CMS	The “front door”—the site linked from the main university website	Linear, inflexible structure Risk that we lose oversight	Good for content that requires strategic and operational alignment with the institution
LibGuides	Library has full control Integrates with other Springshare platforms	Less visible within the institution Lots of authors used to autonomy in this space	Good for detailed content that integrates multimedia or tutorials Lower visibility means essential information shouldn’t live here

Stage 3: Map types to platforms

Finally, it’s time to build your model! You’re going to take the content types from Stage 1 and map them to the platforms identified in Stage 2. When you’re done, each content type should belong to only one platform (although, see below for caveats).

• Set the stage for success. You may encounter some resistance to the notion of strict one-platform-per-content-type mapping. Plan to do some context-setting at the outset of this stage to help your colleagues understand the value of discrete content categories. Key arguments:
  
  
  • Duplicating content across platforms increases maintenance burden, creates reputational risk when information gets out of sync, and undermines user confidence by reducing predictability.
  • By having only one place we host each type of content, we help ourselves by reducing maintenance loads and clarifying decision-making; we help our users by providing a content experience that is predictable and up to date.
• Make your decisions. If you’ve been thorough and inclusive in the first two stages, the appropriate mappings should be pretty obvious. Certain platforms are likely to be best suited to certain types of content.
  
  
  • Example: We decided that our basic operational information belonged on our main website, because this is the most visible platform and the one most aligned with our parent institution. We assigned rich educational content to LibGuides because that platform is better suited to multimedia content, embedded tutorials, and author autonomy.
• Don’t be afraid to adjust as you go. It’s okay to be flexible. You might need to go back and reconsider, expand, or collapse your content types.
  
  
  • Example: We removed a “Transactional” content type in Step 3 because we decided it wasn’t really a discrete type but something that might be embedded within any page or platform.

In the end, you should have a comprehensive, tidy mapping of platforms and content types:

Socializing your content model

Once your team is happy with your model, share it library-wide for comment. Be prepared to explain your decision-making process and who participated (visual artifacts help!). You’ll need broad buy-in for successful implementation.

If the model has significant implications for a particular group, take the time to talk them through it before everything is set in stone. For example, at one institution I worked at, a couple of units had gone rogue and built their own sites on other platforms. Once implemented, our content model would dictate that that rogue content be repatriated to the main site. I made sure folks from these units were aware of these implications ahead of time and worked to assure them that their needs would not be steamrolled in this process.

After gathering feedback, bring the model to your executive team for review and sign off.

Applying your content model

Congratulations! You’re now ready to start thoughtfully restructuring your web content with the power of a consensus-built content model. Here are some suggestions on how to wield your model to drive change.

During a web redesign

The easiest implementation time is during a website redesign. If you’re already migrating content, sort out what belongs where at the same time! I recommend creating a content model during the early phases of the redesign process, ideally just before or in conjunction with conducting an audit of your existing web content. Having a content model to hand as you run your content audit can be very useful for thinking about what your pages are doing and why.

To existing content

If you’re not gearing up for a redesign, you can apply your content model iteratively to existing content. By the time you’ve created your model, you will probably have a good sense of what is not currently aligned.

If you have a lot of content mess to sort out, start with a prioritization framework:

• What changes carry the biggest impacts (in terms of maintenance burden, reputational risk, or predictability/learnability)?
  
  
• Which will be the easiest to clean up? Which will be hardest?

Using a standard grid that plots impact versus effort can help you decide where to focus your efforts first. You might want to start with cleanup that you can do on your own or that involves colleagues you know will be open to change. Build up some momentum with quick wins, then use those successes to push for more. Use your content model as a conversation opener with affected authors/owners and start cleaning up your content chaos one page at a time.

When creating new content

A content model isn’t something you implement and set aside—it’s something you’ll be using each time there’s new content to be added to your web presence. If your web ecosystem involves a lot of authors with varying degrees of autonomy, it can be useful to train folks on the model and provide visual artifacts to help them use it. The content model you created through the process above is a top-down document; transforming it into a bottom-up flowchart is a great way to make it actionable for content authors. Here’s our version:

Conclusion

I’ve done this process twice now, and the ROI was absolutely worth the effort. Staff benefit from the model because it takes the guesswork out of content creation and maintenance decisions. Users benefit because consistency reduces duplication and increases predictability. The content benefits because you’re able to intentionally capitalize on the strengths of each of your platforms.

But honestly, the biggest benefit for me is how the model simplifies difficult conversations. When you can say, “Look, I know you had your reasons for moving your content into a different platform, but we’ve collectively developed this model—and library executive’s signed off on it—and that model says this content belongs on our main site” — you can bring real gravitas to your conversations. You take the politics and personal grievance out and keep things professional and evidence-based. I would have broached these conversations anyway, but having a content model to back me up has made it easier, faster, and altogether more pleasant.

Any platform that can have content will have content, but it doesn’t need to be a free-for-all. By systematically identifying your content types, evaluating your content platforms, and mapping the former to the latter, you can clarify decision-making processes, short-circuit arguments, ensure you’re using your resources to best effect, and provide a predictable content experience for visitors.

Related Posts