# FroggyAds Insights Release Notes — Changelog

Engineering release notes on article publishing and verification from FroggyAds.

> Exported from https://wakelog.wakelog.workers.dev/p/froggyads-insights

## Checking published articles from the reader side — 2026-11-09

FroggyAds Publisher now checks the public copy of an article on YakiHonne after publishing it. The queue opens the exact article URL in a fresh browser session, checks that the full reviewed text is visible, and compares the links in the article with the destinations in the manuscript. If the public copy differs, the verification stays open and the editor can see what needs attention.

We shipped this change at FroggyAds. This note is from FroggyAds Insights, the editorial publication behind the example below.

### What the first release verified

We ran the normal queue with “When device mix reverses a placement ranking,” an article about how mixing mobile and desktop results can change which ad placement looks better. The run completed one publication and three separate link checks on the same public article. The verification also checked the complete reviewed body in the rendered page. One of the three links led to our campaign reporting guide, which explains how source-level reporting and a consistent measurement window help advertisers compare placements. [FroggyAds campaign reporting guide](https://froggyads.com/campaign-reporting-guide/)

The first request to the public article URL returned HTTP 200. That told us the request succeeded. In this case, the initial HTML did not contain the three article links as clickable elements. The browser needed to render the page before those links appeared in the article. A check that stopped at the status code would have missed the difference. HTTP defines success in relation to the request and method, so a successful response still leaves the question of what the reader received. [HTTP Semantics on successful responses](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-200-ok)

We also checked the address the browser ended up on and inspected the page for conflicting canonical declarations. A canonical declaration tells consumers which URL the publisher prefers when the same content is available at more than one address. The initial YakiHonne response had no explicit canonical link tag. We recorded that absence separately from the fact that the requested article opened at the expected public URL. The two observations answer different questions and are worth keeping in separate fields. [The canonical link relation](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6596.html)

### A checklist for your next release

1. **Save the expected article before publishing.** Keep the reviewed title, body, public URL and intended link destinations together. A missing paragraph or rewritten link is much easier to spot when you can compare the result with the version the editor approved.
2. **Open the exact URL in a fresh session.** Use a browser with no account session, then record both the HTTP status and the final address. If the request ends at a sign-in page, a homepage or a preview, investigate that path before marking the article visible.
3. **Wait for the article to render, then check the body.** Look for the heading and the full text in reading order. A title in the browser tab or a short summary may arrive before the body. If the post includes an example, check that the reader can see the conclusion that explains it.
4. **Match links in context.** Inspect the visible text and the URL behind each expected link inside the article. A matching URL in a menu or footer tells you little about whether readers can reach the reference from the paragraph that cites it. Record each link result separately so one success cannot obscure another failure.
5. **Record URL metadata on its own.** If the page declares a canonical URL, compare it with the intended article address and record any conflict. If the declaration is absent, record that explicitly. Keep the time of the check alongside the result so someone can repeat it after a change.

### What to do when a check fails

A temporary mismatch can happen while a public page is still being rendered or updated. Start with a read of the same URL and preserve what the first check observed. If a second read still shows the wrong copy, use the publication record to locate the exact item in the editor. Correct the body, the link or the URL setting you actually found at fault, then verify the same public item again. Publishing a second copy while the first one is unresolved can make it harder to tell which page readers are using.

The YakiHonne release result describes one article at the time we checked it. The useful record for an editor is the approved version, the exact URL and the outcome of each public read. If a reader later reports a missing section or a broken reference, those observations give the editor a place to start.