You published an article two years ago. It ranked #3 for a valuable keyword, drove consistent traffic, generated leads. You checked yesterday—it's page two now, traffic down 60%, conversions nearly zero.
Nothing changed about the article. The information is still accurate. The writing is still good. But the content degraded anyway, victim to entropy's inexorable pull toward disorder.
Claude Shannon's information theory defined entropy as the measure of uncertainty in a message. High entropy means high information density—the message contains surprises. Low entropy means predictability—you already know what's coming.
Content entropy works the same way. New content has high information entropy—readers encounter novel perspectives, unexpected insights, fresh data. Over time, those insights become common knowledge. The surprises become predictable. Information entropy decays.
Your article didn't get worse. The information landscape around it evolved until your content became redundant—saying things readers already know from elsewhere. Quality content remains non-negotiable, but quality alone can't prevent entropy's effects.
Every piece of content exists in competitive context. When you publish, you're competing against existing articles. Your content succeeds by offering higher information density than alternatives—better insights, newer data, clearer explanations.
Then competitors respond. They read your article, identify what worked, incorporate those elements while adding their own insights. They publish "Complete Guide to [Your Topic]: 2025 Edition." Their content has higher information entropy than yours because it includes everything you said plus what they learned from you.
Your ranking drops not because you got worse but because the competitive landscape got better. This is content entropy in action—competitive information density always increases until market saturation makes the topic economically unviable for new entrants.
Google's algorithms favor recent content for topics where timeliness matters. This isn't arbitrary—it's algorithmic recognition of content entropy. Older content has higher probability of containing outdated information, so recency becomes a proxy for information quality.
Search behavior is changing, but the freshness bias persists across platforms. Even AI-powered search engines use publication date as relevance signal because entropy is real—older content genuinely becomes less informative over time, even when facts remain accurate.
Your publication date becomes a handicap. A mediocre article from last month outranks your superior article from two years ago because the algorithm assumes entropy has degraded your information value. Sometimes that assumption is wrong. Often it's right.
Your article linked to sources—studies, tools, examples, case studies. Those links decay. Websites restructure. Tools shut down. Companies rebrand. Case studies become outdated when the featured companies fail or pivot.
Each broken link increases entropy—uncertainty about whether your content still provides the information it claims. Each outdated reference signals to readers (and algorithms) that maintenance has lapsed. The content might be accurate, but the infrastructure supporting it has degraded.
Scaling content without subject matter experts often creates this problem faster—content produced without deep knowledge includes weaker sources that degrade more quickly, accelerating entropy.
Sometimes the information in your content remains accurate, but the context shifted enough to make your framing obsolete. You wrote about "email marketing best practices" before GDPR, before iOS privacy changes, before spam filters got sophisticated. The tactics work, but the regulatory and technical context changed enough that your article feels outdated even when factually correct.
SEO and content strategy requires anticipating context shifts. Writing evergreen content means choosing topics where context remains stable—core principles rather than tactical implementations, frameworks rather than tool recommendations.
But true evergreen content is rare. Most topics exist in shifting context that increases entropy whether the facts change or not. Your article about Twitter marketing strategy became less relevant when the platform rebranded to X, even if the tactics remained valid.
When you publish on an under-covered topic, your content has high information entropy because you're saying things few others have said. Success attracts competition. Within months, dozens of articles cover the same topic, incorporating your insights while adding their own.
The topic reaches semantic saturation—enough has been written that new content struggles to add information value. Your original article, once novel, now competes in a saturated market where information entropy is low across all content because everything's been said multiple times.
This is why thought leadership content opportunities matter—finding topics before saturation, where your content can have high information entropy before competition drives it down. First-mover advantage in content isn't about being right—it's about capturing attention before entropy drives information density toward zero.
AI content generation accelerates entropy dramatically. Topics that would have taken years to reach semantic saturation now get there in months. ChatGPT users generate thousands of articles on any topic, flooding the information ecosystem with content that rapidly drives everyone's information entropy down.
Your carefully researched article faces competition from hundreds of AI-generated pieces that synthesized public knowledge (including yours) into new combinations. They're not better—but they're newer, and search algorithms can't reliably distinguish superior human content from competent AI content at scale.
Automated content creation promised efficiency. It delivered entropy acceleration—content lifespans compressed because the publication rate increased exponentially.
Changing the publication date without updating content is theater. Search engines detect this. Readers notice immediately. You're signaling freshness without reducing entropy, which makes the problem worse by advertising that your content is maintained when it isn't.
Minor updates—changing "2023" to "2025" in your intro—don't fight entropy. They acknowledge it exists while doing nothing substantive about it. This is like painting over rust instead of treating corrosion.
Adding a "last updated" banner while leaving content unchanged just highlights that you're aware of entropy but unwilling to address it. Readers notice. Algorithms notice. Your ranking continues declining.
Reducing content entropy requires adding new information—insights competitors haven't covered, updated data that changes conclusions, new examples that weren't available when you first published, framework refinements based on testing your original recommendations.
Real updates mean rewriting sections, sometimes most of the article. It means treating updates like new content creation, not maintenance. You're fighting competitive information density that increased while your content remained static.
Strategic content partnerships can help—collaborating with others provides access to new insights and data that increase your content's information entropy without requiring you to generate all novel information internally.
Content refresh requires ongoing investment. You're choosing between maintaining existing content and creating new content. Both fight entropy—maintenance prevents decay, creation establishes new positions before competition saturates them.
Most companies under-invest in maintenance, preferring new content creation. This makes economic sense until your content library reaches size where decay losses exceed new content gains. Then maintenance becomes more valuable than creation.
The optimal refresh cycle varies by topic velocity. Fast-moving topics (technology, marketing tactics, platform features) need quarterly refreshes. Slow-moving topics (fundamental principles, human psychology) might survive years before entropy demands updates.
Some content should die. The maintenance cost exceeds the value it generates. Rather than fighting entropy, delete the content. Let it decay completely instead of maintaining zombie articles that consume resources without delivering value.
This is psychologically difficult—admitting that past effort becomes worthless feels like failure. But entropy is thermodynamic law applied to information. Fighting it everywhere means winning nowhere. Strategic deletion concentrates maintenance resources on content worth saving.
Community contribution and promotional content balance requires similar choices—deciding what content serves community value worth maintaining versus what exists only for promotion and can be allowed to decay.
Understanding entropy changes content strategy fundamentally. You're not creating permanent assets—you're creating temporary information advantages that decay unless maintained. The question isn't "what content should we create?" but "what content can we maintain against entropy?"
This favors depth over breadth—fewer articles maintained consistently beat larger libraries slowly decaying. It favors frameworks over tactics—principles degrade slower than implementations. It favors proprietary data over synthesized knowledge—unique information sources create sustainable information entropy.
Want to build content strategies that account for entropy instead of pretending permanent content exists? We help companies create and maintain content that sustains information value against competitive and temporal decay. Let's talk about fighting entropy that's degrading your content right now.
Cassandra Mellen : Dec 14, 2025 4:15:41 PM
There's a misconception that AI makes it easier to create content, so quality standards will drop. The reality? They're rising.
Writing Team : Sep 15, 2025 8:00:00 AM
Your website visitors are drowning in information.
-2.png)
Writing Team : Jan 22, 2025 5:02:23 PM
Your words might be pure gold—but if they're presented as a wall of text, you might lose your audience before they even start reading. Let's dive...
Writing Team