Content gaps and feedback
Turn unanswered searches and reader feedback into accountable content work.
StatusOpenInProgressResolvedArticleCreatedWontFix
Find the questions your library misses
A search with no permitted result can reveal a missing answer, an unfamiliar phrase or a topic outside the help center’s scope. Content gaps collect those observations by normalized query and audience. Repeated searches can raise a topic’s priority, while a replayed event counts only once. Internal and public search gaps remain separate so private staff queries do not spill into a public content backlog.
KB Manager can investigate the question, assign an eligible author or close an irrelevant gap with a reason. An assignment makes responsibility visible without claiming the question is answered. The board distinguishes open, in-progress, resolved and intentionally closed work, and keeps the observation frequency behind each topic.
Resolve the gap with an accessible answer
An article closes a gap when its current published version is available to that gap’s audience. An internal-only answer cannot resolve a question customers still cannot read. The gap retains the exact resolution version so the team can revisit the decision if the article is later withdrawn or the question continues to appear.
The authoring and review steps remain the same for a gap-driven article as for any other answer. A high search count does not authorize skipping a specialist review or publishing a draft attachment. The team can make a deliberate decision about wording, category and related links before the answer becomes the customer’s next search result.
Read feedback with its version and sample
Readers can mark an article helpful or not helpful and provide an optional comment. Feedback is tied to the version they actually read, and repeated submissions under the same event identity return the existing observation. An article with no feedback has an unavailable helpfulness ratio, not a zero-quality score. Alerts combine the configured ratio threshold with a minimum observation count.
The current author receives a scoped link to investigate the issue rather than a broad email containing raw customer text. Publishing a revision does not erase earlier feedback or pretend that old ratings belong to the new answer. KB Manager can compare versions explicitly and decide whether the issue is incomplete instructions, a broken step, unclear wording or a question the article was never intended to answer. This keeps reader signals connected to real content work without allowing a single ambiguous rating to rewrite the publication record.
Modules
-
Article authoring
Turn a useful answer into a structured draft with the context readers need.
-
Review and publishing
Approve the exact article revision and publish a frozen version.
-
Search and self-service
Help customers and support agents find the current answer they can access.
-
Content gaps and feedback
Turn unanswered searches and reader feedback into accountable content work.
-
Knowledge maintenance
Keep review dates and broken-link work visible after publication.
-
Helpdesk and insights
Reuse support answers and measure what happened after customers read them.
Reports
All reportsContent Gaps Funnel
ContentGaps by Status: Open → InProgress → ResolvedArticleCreated / WontFix, with median time-to-resolve and total observed Frequency. Drills from gap to the resolving Article.
Roles and permissions
Owns knowledge coverage, required review policy and publishing decisions.
Drafts and maintains assigned knowledge articles.
Searches approved knowledge while helping customers.
Finds and rates current public answers.
Related processes
Draft to published answer
Move an exact article revision through the required reviews into publication.
4 stages · 1 approval
Search to useful answer
Deliver the permitted published answer and capture its actual reading context.
4 stages · 0 approvals
Content gap to reviewed update
Turn search gaps, ratings and overdue review into a published improvement.
4 stages · 1 approval