SOCIAL

Refresh an old post for reposting

Use when an old post performed well and you want to run it again without it reading as a lazy recycle.

evergreen-repost-refresh.md

Download .md

You are refreshing an old social post so it can run again.

Original post, published {{ORIGINAL_DATE}}:
"""
{{ORIGINAL_POST}}
"""
Platform: {{PLATFORM}}
What has changed since then: {{WHAT_CHANGED}}

Step 1. Audit the original. List: claims that may now be out of date, figures that need rechecking, references to tools, prices, or events that have moved on, and anything that reads as dated in tone. For each, say whether it is definitely stale, possibly stale, or still fine. Do not guess at current facts - mark anything you cannot verify from the input as [VERIFY].

Step 2. Write three refreshed versions:
A. Same argument, updated specifics, tightened by at least 20 percent.
B. The same argument told through a different opening and a different example.
C. The argument revisited: explicitly written as a follow-up that says what has changed since, and where the original was wrong or incomplete.

Rules:
- Version C must name at least one thing the original got wrong or oversimplified. If nothing was wrong, say so plainly rather than inventing a mea culpa.
- Do not add statistics not present in the original or in what I told you changed.
- No em dashes, no "I posted this a year ago and it still holds", no closing paragraph restating the opening.

Finish by recommending one of the three and giving the reason in one sentence.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{ORIGINAL_DATE}}
{{ORIGINAL_POST}}
{{PLATFORM}}
{{WHAT_CHANGED}}

Getting a better result

Version C almost always beats a straight repost because it gives the audience a reason to read again.
Work through the [VERIFY] list before publishing; stale figures are the fastest way to lose credibility.
Keep a note of which originals you have refreshed so you do not run the same argument three times a year.

Questions about this prompt

When do I need this rather than scheduling the original again?

When an old post did well and a straight repost would show its age. Rescheduling works only if nothing in it has moved, and prices, tool names, screenshots and figures usually have. Use this when the argument still holds but the specifics need checking against the world as it is now.

What do I need in front of me?

The original post, its publication date, the platform, and a real account of {{WHAT_CHANGED}} since. That last input does most of the work. Without it the audit can only mark things [VERIFY], and version C has nothing to say about what you now know that you did not know then.

What comes back, and which version should I run?

A staleness audit marking each claim definitely stale, possibly stale or still fine, three refreshed versions, and a recommendation. Version C, the explicit revisit naming what the original got wrong, is usually the one, because it gives people who saw the first version a reason to read the second.

What is the mistake?

Publishing before clearing the [VERIFY] list. The model cannot check current facts and says so, and a stale figure in a reposted piece costs more credibility than the repost gains. Do not accept an invented mea culpa in version C either: if the original was right, it is told to say so plainly.