Research process
Our research process is built around one simple goal: publish content that is useful, clear, and grounded enough to be trusted by South African readers. We do not approach every page in exactly the same way, because different topics need different levels of checking. A practical document explainer is not researched in exactly the same way as a guide tied to a public process, a government service, or an official status-check system.
In general, our research process starts with the reader’s real question. We look at what the page is actually trying to help with. That helps shape the scope of the page, the level of detail it needs, and the type of sources or editorial work that make sense for it. From there, we work to separate what is foundational, what is practical, and what is explanatory.
A typical content workflow may include:
- identifying the exact question the page should answer
- defining whether the topic is evergreen, practical, official-process based, or time-sensitive
- finding the strongest available source base for that topic
- comparing official wording with real-world user confusion
- drafting in plain language
- checking the draft for clarity, accuracy, consistency, and South African relevance
- revising the page so it is easier to use in practice
We also try to avoid one common mistake: confusing information density with usefulness. A page can contain many words and still fail the reader. Our research process is therefore not only about collecting facts. It is also about understanding which facts matter, which distinctions readers are most likely to miss, and how to explain the topic without unnecessary clutter.
For process-based pages, we pay closer attention to official flows, current access routes, public-facing instructions, and practical friction points. For template or document pages, we often focus more on structure, purpose, common usage patterns, and the differences between a sample document, a template, and a finished document. For trust, policy, and editorial pages, the emphasis is often on clarity, transparency, and consistency with the standards we want the site to reflect.
Sources we use
We aim to use sources that match the type of content being written. Not every page depends on the same kind of source, so we do not treat all topics as if they require the same research method.
Where possible, we prefer:
- official websites
- government portals
- public institutions
- regulator guidance
- primary public documents
- official service pages
- direct process channels
These sources are especially important for topics involving public services, social grants, applications, regulatory systems, official procedures, or current service routes.
For other types of pages, especially document explainers, example hubs, and template education, research may also draw on:
- common document structures
- practical drafting patterns
- editorial comparison across similar document types
- South Africa-relevant wording and usage
- real-world process logic
That kind of page is often less about one official “rule” and more about helping the reader understand what a document is for, what it commonly includes, how it is usually used, and where people tend to make mistakes.
We also distinguish between source types in practice:
- Primary sources are used where the underlying process or rule matters directly.
- Secondary sources may help with clarity, but they do not automatically replace the need for an official reference when the topic depends on one.
- Editorial knowledge and practical structuring are used to make content easier to understand, especially where the raw source material is too thin, too technical, or too difficult for ordinary readers to use directly.
Local relevance matters as part of sourcing. A source may be credible in one context and still not be suitable for a South African audience if it relies on foreign assumptions, foreign legal frameworks, or different administrative systems. That is why source selection is not only about authority. It is also about fit.
Update cycle
We update content on a needs-based cycle rather than forcing every page into the same calendar. Some pages stay useful for a long time with only small improvements. Others need closer attention because the topic can change, the official process may shift, links may break, or the page may become less clear over time.
Pages may be updated for reasons such as:
- official process changes
- new or updated source material
- broken or outdated links
- improved contact or access channels
- better local wording
- stronger structure or clarity
- reader confusion or recurring questions
- internal editorial review
- trust and transparency improvements
In practice, that means some updates are factual and some are editorial.
A factual update may involve:
- changing a link
- correcting a contact method
- adjusting a step in a public process
- revising a source note
- removing outdated wording
An editorial update may involve:
- improving headings
- rewriting dense sections into plain language
- adding checklists
- clarifying common mistakes
- strengthening local relevance
- making the page easier to scan and use
We do not assume that publication is the end of the process. A page may be improved after publication if there is a clear reason to make it more accurate, more understandable, or more helpful. Some pages may also include signals such as review dates, change notes, or source notes where that improves transparency for readers.
The main principle behind our update cycle is simple: if a page can be made materially better for the reader, it is worth revisiting.