rest_post_invalid_id, a hard 404. It is not live under another id: the site has 5 posts
in total and it is not among them. Our calendar still says published.boe.es (Boletín Oficial del Estado) and
codigotecnico.org (the Spanish building code).Hola,
Dos días después del arranque, un repaso rápido.
ClearPost ha publicado cuatro artículos y tres siguen en la web: Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, y las cortinas de cristal en Alcobendas. El de Majadahonda lo has borrado.
Me parece bien, y creo que sé por qué. Los seis primeros artículos del plan son casi el mismo texto cambiando de municipio: Madrid, Pozuelo, Majadahonda, Alcobendas, Boadilla, Las Rozas. Leídos seguidos se notan repetitivos, y a Google tampoco le convencen.
El resto del plan no va por ahí. Después llegan los precios reales, la comparativa de PVC y aluminio, los inconvenientes de las cortinas de cristal, la mayoría que necesitas en la comunidad de vecinos, el aislamiento térmico y acústico, y las guillotinas de cristal para restaurantes. Ahí es donde de verdad te diferencias.
Puedo adelantar esos temas y repartir los municipios, uno cada cierto tiempo en lugar de seis seguidos. Dímelo y lo cambio hoy mismo.
Una cosa que sí está saliendo bien: los artículos citan el BOE y el Código Técnico de la Edificación. En cerramientos la primera duda del cliente siempre es si aquello es legal, y responder con la fuente oficial es lo que hace que una página se gane la confianza.
¿Te encaja el contenido? Si algo no va, cuéntamelo ahora que estamos a tiempo.
Christian
Because they will notice that I noticed, and pretending otherwise would be worse. The memory note calls a deleted post the highest-fidelity quality signal we get. Ignoring it to lead with "three articles are live" would waste the clearest piece of feedback this account has given us.
The email does not ask them to justify the deletion. It says "me parece bien", offers my own theory, and invites a correction. If my theory is wrong they will say so, and that answer is worth more than the compliment I would otherwise have written.
Their first six scheduled posts:
| Date | Title |
|---|---|
| 08-20 | Pérgola bioclimática en Madrid |
| 08-21 | Pérgola bioclimática en Pozuelo de Alarcón |
| 08-22 | Pérgola bioclimática en Majadahonda (deleted) |
| 08-23 | Cortinas de cristal en Alcobendas |
| 08-24 | Pérgola bioclimática en Boadilla del Monte |
| 08-25 | Pérgola bioclimática en Las Rozas |
The full plan is not like this, and that is the point of the email. Only 8 of 34 titles name a town, and only 5 use the pérgola-plus-town shape. The other 26 are genuinely varied: prices, PVC versus aluminium, the drawbacks of glass curtains, the majority vote you need from the neighbours' association, thermal and acoustic insulation, motorised glass guillotines for restaurants.
So the plan is good and the ordering put its five weakest, most repetitive items in the customer's first week. That is a sequencing problem I can fix today, and it does not require any product change.
| Post | External citation |
|---|---|
| 3157, Pozuelo | boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1960-10906, the Ley de Propiedad Horizontal |
| 3165, Alcobendas | codigotecnico.org, the Código Técnico de la Edificación |
For a terrace-enclosure business the customer's first question is always whether the work is legal. Citing the horizontal property law and the building code is exactly right. After the invented domain on www.roshni.com.pk this week, this is the same feature behaving well, and it is specific enough to be worth saying out loud.
You sent this customer an email on 2026-08-20 at 21:37 UTC, and it named "Pérgola bioclimática en Majadahonda" as one of their two live articles. They deleted that exact post afterwards.
I cannot tell whether the email prompted them to look, or whether they were going to delete it anyway. Either reading points the same way: they are reading the content and making judgements about it, two days in. That is a better sign than silence.
The draft does not mention the previous email. Reminding someone that you told them about a post they then deleted invites embarrassment on both sides for no gain.
published for the deleted post. That is
our bookkeeping problem, not theirs.