When to edit a calendar vs publish a new one

Most calendars never face this decision. They get published, run for a season, and stop being relevant. No replacement needed.

Some calendars do face it. A trainer who runs the same summer program next year. A school that publishes a new fall schedule. A team that adds a winter season. Editing the existing calendar or publishing a new one is a small decision with a big downstream effect.

The rule of thumb is one sentence. Same audience equals same calendar. Different audience equals new calendar.

Same audience, same calendar

If the same parents are watching the same kids do the same sport next season, edit the existing calendar.

Open the calendar in the dashboard. Clear the old events. Add the new ones. Save. The feed auto-updates on every subscriber's device on their next refresh, whether they are on Apple Calendar or Google Calendar. No re-sharing. No "the link changed" message. No churn.

This is the case Calfeed is built for. The first calendar you ever publish should outlive every individual season inside it.

The subscriber count is the asset. Protect it.

Different audience, new calendar

If the audience is different, publish a separate calendar.

A trainer who runs a summer program and a winter program publishes two calendars, not one. The two audiences overlap but are not identical. Some families do summer only. Some do winter only. Mixing them produces a calendar where every subscriber sees half-irrelevant events.

A school that publishes a calendar for each grade publishes a separate calendar per grade. The parents of a 5th grader and the parents of a 9th grader are different audiences. They should not subscribe to one merged feed.

This is the case where a new calendar wins. Every calendar should have one audience.

Edit cases that look like new-calendar cases (but are not)

Edit in place when the audience stays the same, even if the schedule looks different. Name changes, schedule-wide time shifts, visual refreshes, and added event types all keep the same audience and belong on the same link.

Name change. A "Summer 2026 Training" calendar that should now be called "Year-Round Training" can be renamed in place. The link is unchanged. Subscribers see the new name on the next refresh.

Time change for the entire schedule. Every event moves an hour later. Edit in place. The calendar is the same calendar.

Big visual refresh. New logo, new brand color, new public-page layout. Edit in place. The chrome can change. The link cannot. The iCalendar feed format (RFC 5545) lets you swap event content underneath a stable URL.

Adding a new event type. Adding game days to a calendar that previously only had practices. Same audience. Edit in place.

Cases where a new calendar wins

Publish a new calendar when the audience splits, the visibility scope flips, or the buyer changes. Each of these breaks the "same audience" rule even when the schedule itself feels like a continuation.

Splitting one audience into two. "I had one program, now I have a beginner group and an advanced group." Make a new calendar for each group. Email both audiences with their new links.

Going from private to public (or back). A calendar that was previously shared inside one family now needs to be visible to a broader audience, or vice versa. The audience boundary changed. New calendar.

Selling to a different organization. The original audience has nothing to do with the new audience. New calendar.

The cost of getting it wrong

Publishing a new calendar when an edit would do means re-sharing. Re-sharing means subscribers do nothing or unsubscribe. The audience count resets to zero. Every viral coefficient and every share-message reply lands you back where you started.

Editing in place when a new calendar would be cleaner is a lower-cost mistake. Subscribers see a slightly weird feed for a season. Audience does not churn.

When in doubt, edit.

Edit an existing calendar and watch the refresh land. New calendars cost 1 credit. See pricing.