How to build a workflow for a design agency to handle website revisions efficiently.

Why High-Volume Revisions Break Agencies

Fifty website revisions per week sounds manageable until you realize that each revision arrives through different channels, from different clients, with different expectations, about different projects at different stages. That email from the client who always replies-all contains three separate revision requests buried in a seven-paragraph message. The Slack thread from the developer who spotted a staging bug has since been buried under two days of other conversations. The voicemail from the board member who doesn't use email describes something you can't quite picture because verbal descriptions of visual problems lose crucial context. Without a system, every revision requires hunting for context, interpreting unclear requests, and tracking status across multiple channels—multiplied by fifty requests weekly, this overhead consumes your team.

I've consulted with agencies at breaking points, where competent teams were failing to deliver quality work simply because their intake and processing systems couldn't handle the volume they were attracting. The frustrating part is that these same agencies had the skills to execute the work beautifully—they just couldn't get the work organized clearly enough to execute it. The difference between agencies scaling comfortably and agencies burning out is rarely talent; it's systems. When every revision takes 10 minutes of context-gathering before you can start the 5-minute change, you're spending twice as much time on overhead as on actual work, and that ratio only gets worse as volume increases.

The Intake System: One Channel for All Feedback

The first principle of high-volume revision handling is forcing all feedback through a single, structured channel regardless of how clients prefer to communicate. This feels counterintuitive because good client service typically means accommodating client preferences, but at scale, accommodation becomes chaos. You can still be responsive and friendly while directing feedback to a single system—"Thanks for the call! I've created a feedback link where you can click directly on the elements you mentioned. Here it is: [link]. This helps our team track and implement your changes accurately."

Link-based feedback tools like Commentblocks become essential at this volume because they capture context automatically and keep feedback organized by project and location. When a client clicks on the navigation menu and types "Make this sticky," you know exactly what they mean without follow-up questions. When they click on a product image and type "Wrong photo," you have a screenshot showing exactly which image on exactly which page at exactly what viewport size. This location-specific feedback with automatic technical context eliminates hours of weekly interpretation work. The feedback link becomes your universal intake mechanism—every client for every project sends feedback the same way, and every request arrives in your queue with the same structured information.

The Processing Schedule: Batched Not Reactive

The second principle is batched processing on a predictable schedule rather than reactive processing as requests arrive. When your team addresses revisions immediately upon receipt, they're constantly context-switching between projects, which destroys productivity. A developer implementing a CSS change for Client A, then switching to fix a form submission for Client B, then returning to Client A for another CSS change spends significant cognitive overhead reloading context each time. Batching revisions by project and processing them together minimizes this switching cost.

We recommend a cadence that most agencies adapt to their specific client mix: feedback collection windows (say, Monday through Thursday), followed by implementation batches (Thursday afternoon for urgent items, Friday for everything else), followed by client communication (Monday morning with what was completed, what's pending, and why). Clients learn the rhythm and plan their feedback accordingly, which further reduces the reactive pressure. Urgent items—site-down emergencies, launch-blocking bugs—bypass this schedule through a clearly defined escalation path, but the vast majority of revisions aren't actually urgent even when clients present them that way. Having a predictable schedule gives you standing to say "I'll have this implemented by Friday" instead of dropping everything to address each request immediately.

The Prioritization Framework: Not Everything Is Urgent

When fifty revisions arrive weekly, some of them genuinely matter more than others, and treating everything as equal priority ensures that important work gets delayed while unimportant work gets rushed. Build a prioritization framework that your team applies consistently: launch-blocking issues (highest priority), functionality bugs (high), design inconsistencies (medium), content tweaks (low), nice-to-haves from scope creep (hold for discussion). When a new revision enters the queue, someone tags it according to this framework before it reaches a developer.

The prioritization conversation with clients can feel awkward, but it's essential for managing both volume and expectations. Most clients understand that their request to change a button color sits below another client's e-commerce checkout bug in the queue. The problems arise when agencies don't communicate the prioritization at all, leaving clients wondering why a "quick change" took three days. Transparency about where a request sits in the queue and why builds trust even when the answer isn't what the client hoped to hear. A client who knows their low-priority request is scheduled for next Friday feels better served than a client who has no idea when their "urgent" request will be addressed.

The Status Loop: Proactive Communication

High-volume revision handling requires proactive status communication because clients left in the dark generate additional communication overhead—"Did you get my feedback?" "When will this be done?" "Is there a problem?"—that compounds your workload. The status loop should be automatic: when feedback is received, client gets confirmation; when work is scheduled, client gets timeline; when work is completed, client gets notification. This loop can be as simple as email templates triggered at each stage, or as sophisticated as client-facing dashboards showing request status.

The status loop also surfaces problems early. If a revision sits in the "pending clarification" status for more than 24 hours, that's a signal to follow up before the client follows up with you. If a project has accumulated 15 open revisions while others have 3, that's a signal to investigate whether scope is creeping or communication is breaking down. We at Commentblocks designed our notification system specifically to support these loops, sending automatic updates as comments are submitted, responded to, and resolved. The goal is ensuring that clients always know what's happening with their feedback without your team manually sending status emails.

Common Mistakes at Scale

The most damaging mistake is adding team members to solve a process problem. If your current system can't handle 50 revisions weekly with three people, adding a fourth person to the same broken system just means four people struggling instead of three. Fix the intake, batching, prioritization, and communication systems first; then evaluate whether capacity is the actual bottleneck.

Another mistake is treating every client like a special case. "This client prefers email" becomes the reason their feedback never enters your tracking system. "That client needs faster turnaround" becomes the reason they constantly jump the queue. These accommodations erode your systems until there are no systems, just ad-hoc handling for each client. Standardize first, then consider exceptions only when the standard approach demonstrably fails for a specific client.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do we get clients to use a new feedback system?

Position it as an improvement to their experience: "We've set up a better way to collect your feedback that ensures nothing gets lost and you can see status updates." Don't apologize for having a system; present it as professional infrastructure.

What if revision volume spikes beyond 50?

Well-designed systems scale. If volume doubles, review whether each component (intake, processing, prioritization, communication) still holds, then address bottlenecks. Usually it's a specific stage failing rather than the whole system.

Should we charge for revisions beyond a certain number?

Revision limits and overage charges are business model decisions. The operational workflow remains the same regardless—but having volume data from your feedback system makes those conversations evidence-based rather than feelings-based.

‍