Reader feedback

Article feedback belongs to a specific article. A reader can mark whether the guidance helped and leave a comment. The submission date lets the Knowledge Editor distinguish an old response from a recent one. This gives the team a concrete place to collect reactions after an answer is published and used in support work.

Imagine a published access article that receives several comments saying the first step is unclear. The owner can read the comments with the article beside them, compare them with current service work and rewrite that step. A helpful response is also useful evidence that the instructions made sense to at least one reader. Neither kind of response replaces a check of the actual service procedure.

• Article link. Every feedback record points to the article it concerns, so comments stay with the answer being maintained.
• Response. The helpful flag and comment capture a simple reader judgment and its explanation.
• Timing. The submission date helps the editor review feedback in the order it arrived and spot a change in reactions after an edit.

The feedback record has its own number. Use it when discussing a particular comment with another editor. Keep the comment specific to the article’s instruction; an incident requiring urgent handling should still be managed as an incident.

Decide which readers can submit feedback and which editors may read comments. A free-text comment may include operational details, so access should match the team’s support policy. Agree when an editor should revisit an article: a single clear correction, repeated unhelpful responses or a service procedure change may each warrant a review.

Make ownership actionable. Someone should check the feedback view regularly and route corrections to the article owner. Decide whether an edited published article goes back to Review before the team continues using it. If the team wants a broader public survey or a customer portal, plan that connection separately from the article feedback record.

Choose one published article with a known support question. Record a helpful response and a second response with a comment about a confusing step. The Knowledge Editor opens the feedback list, confirms both records point to the intended article and checks the submission dates. The editor compares the comment with the current article body and a recent incident update. If the instruction needs changing, revise it, send it through review and check the published copy again. The original feedback remains attached to the same article for context.

• Recent article feedback — Dated responses with helpfulness and comments beside the linked article.
• Published article library — The current answer the reader was reacting to.
• My articles — Owned content the editor can revise after reviewing comments.

Use feedback and revision to turn a comment into a reviewed edit. The article publication process covers the next decision when the answer changes materially.