Editorial standards
The rules we hold ourselves to, written down so they can be checked.
Independence
Recommendations are not for sale. No vendor sees a review before publication, and no payment changes a ranking, a score, or whether a tool appears at all. Where a link earns us a commission, the page says so.
Accuracy
- Every factual claim is either verifiable by the reader or marked as our judgement.
- Version numbers, prices and dates are stated rather than implied.
- “Should work” is not published as “works”.
Sourcing
Where a claim comes from documentation, a changelog or a vendor statement, we link to it. Where it comes from our own testing, the page says that instead. Those are different kinds of evidence and readers deserve to know which one they are getting.
Use of AI
AI tools may be used for research and for drafting. No page is published without a person running the steps and taking responsibility for them. An article that no human verified does not go up, regardless of how well it reads.
Bylines and review
Every article carries a named author. Where a piece has been checked by a second person with relevant experience, a “Reviewed by” line appears with their name and credentials. If that line is absent, no second reviewer checked it. We would rather show nothing than imply a review that did not happen.
Corrections
Errors are corrected on the page, dated, and described. We do not silently edit a page to make a mistake disappear.
Conflicts of interest
If a writer has a material relationship with a tool being covered - employment, equity, unpaid contribution - it is disclosed on the page, or the piece is reassigned.