Obtaining twenty headline ideas may be easy. Deciding which deserves to be written is a different task. I do not treat the length of an idea list as evidence of editorial productivity.
Extract the question
What will the article answer? A broad phrase such as a new digital era is insufficient. I should be able to explain what a reader will understand better after finishing.
I group suggestions that ask the same question in different words. They may belong as sections within one guide rather than separate articles. Variety in titles does not necessarily indicate variety in thought.
Identify the contribution
Do we have sources, examples or a distinctive way of examining the subject? If the piece would merely rearrange general information, it may need a narrower focus. A personal publication gains character through the details it chooses to notice.
Inventing lived experience does not solve a missing contribution. Illustrative situations can be useful when clearly identified. Source review should begin at the idea stage.
Check whether it can be produced
A good idea may depend on information not yet available. I keep it in research rather than immediately assign a publication date. Requirements for imagery, specialist input or current evidence should be recorded.
Timing also differs by subject. A topical idea may not become a lasting guide, while an evergreen topic may not be this week’s priority. The idea pool and publication calendar serve different purposes.
Use a few clear outcomes
Commission, research further or reject. Rejecting an idea protects editorial focus rather than signalling failure. The selected idea should retain a short note describing its question and distinction from existing work.
I use AI suggestions as material for judgement, not a ready-made publishing plan. Value comes from explaining why an idea was chosen, not from counting how many were generated.