Feature preview
AI automatically tags, automatically matches titles with images, and generates TDK, which can save the repetitive labor of entry, but the product itself may still be wrong: misaligned tags can distort in-site search, and image matching should consider the source and watermark. The review should be done before the draft is converted to a formal version, and sensitive word filtering and keyword replacement are just at the bottom layer, not replacing manual judgment of facts and compliance. Before mass production, the review should be passed first, and then scheduled for release.
Can tags and images automatically generated by the content system be directly launched? It can go through the process, but it is not recommended to launch directly; where should the review be placed - before the draft turns into a formal one, not after the publication. AI automatic writing, AI automatic tags and title automatic image solving is productivity, but the judgment still needs someone to stand in the chain
The label is wrong because it has drifted. The automatic label assigns words based on context, and it is easy for columns with similar themes to get mixed up. Once the label is biased, the in-site search and related recommendations will follow suit, and it takes much more effort to clean up in bulk after the fact than to inspect beforehand.
The error in the picture is in the source and compatibility. Whether it is a picture generated by AI painting or a picture automatically matched with the title, two things must be checked: whether the source is clear, and whether there are recognizable watermarks or other identifiers in the image. Sites with watermark management can reduce some risks at the upload stage, but they cannot eliminate the judgment.
TDK is wrong in the diameter drift. The automatically generated titles, descriptions, and keywords often apply the text on the article page to the column page, resulting in the title displayed on the column page not complying with the search results.
This step from draft to formal. Once the status of the formal document changes, the sitemap and link push will bring it into the discovery process, at this point, it is found that the tags are wrong, the pictures are wrong, and changes will leave traces of secondary crawling and version confusion.
Content safety settings include sensitive word filtering and keyword replacement at the bottom layer, not the review layer. They act according to the word list and cannot determine whether this sentence is a fact in the article, nor can they stop a picture that does not match the topic. The correct level is: manual review of facts and compliance first, then let the filtering rules collect the residuals, and finally, set the formal.
When producing multiple articles at once, following this order is more stable.
Let the automatic tags and AI painting only produce drafts, not directly set to formal. Look at three things for each article: whether the tags fall on the topic of the article, whether the illustrations have identifiable sources, and whether the TDK and the first paragraph of the article are talking about the same thing.
Before batch入库, check for duplicates first, as conflicting articles on the same topic are common accidents; confirm there are no duplicates before scheduling for release, and let the system handle the release rhythm with time factors, not relying on people to guard time points.
When it is necessary to rewrite in batches, running a full-site replacement will affect all historical articles, and actions such as changing keywords and links should be done after the inspection is passed.
Do the automatically generated tags need to be changed manually?Don't change each item one by one, but do a spot check: prioritize new columns, articles with similar themes, and products deemed of low credibility.
Can the illustration be used directly?Look at two points: is there a clear source, and is there an identifiable watermark or someone else's mark. If either is questionable, replace the image, don't just rely on changing the description.
If the sensitive word filter is turned on, do we still need to review?No. The filter intercepts and modifies according to the word list, cannot change factual errors, and cannot determine contextual errors, and the two are not interchangeable.
How should articles that do not pass the review be handled?Leave it in draft status for modification, review it again after modification; for those that have already gone through the site map, check after the official version is overlaid to see if it is necessary to go through the recycling bin.
Preview
When managing multiple sites with the same content system, the isolation of user groups and permissions should be divided into two layers: first, define the site boundary, what operations the account can perform in which site; then, define the group boundary, the corresponding readable and writable scope for editors, operators, and external authors. AnQiCMS uses multi-site management and user groups with VIP groups to implement these two layers, and make a data backup before changing permissions, recover deleted documents from the recycle bin.
Preview
When batch modifying the keywords of old columns, it is suitable to replace them station-wide with clear scope, unambiguous matching strings, and no semantic judgment involved. The mechanical changes should be made for each article depending on the context. The boundary lies in whether the replacement may harm homophones, and whether it affects the semantics of the title and description. Before starting, run a preview of the replacement list, and confirm that the backup and recycle bin can handle any unintended changes.
Preview
After adding a new field to the custom content model, the empty value of this field in historical articles is a normal phenomenon. The problem lies in the display and value assumptions. The processing order is: first, add an empty value as a fallback in the template list display, then decide where to place the default value in the model layer or the write layer, and finally, only batch fill in the old articles that truly need unified values, to avoid a one-time change that exceeds the scope.
