Editorial standard
The governing rule: we say what we have and have not done, and we route you to the right answer even when it pays us nothing.
What every page must carry
- An affiliate disclosure above the content, naming the programmes involved.
- Exactly one evidence label on every factual claim.
- A source link and an access date on every price, rate and limit.
- The free or unmonetised alternative, named where one exists.
- A specific statement of who should not do this.
- Limitations and failure cases — not a disclaimer at the bottom.
- A named author and two dates: last updated, and last checked.
Words we are strict about
| Word | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Best / Best for X | First-hand testing of the named option and of the realistic alternatives |
| Our pick | First-hand testing, published criteria, and a stated “who should not” |
| Recommended | First-hand use, or clearly cited independent evidence, with the basis stated inline |
| No first-hand evidence | We write “options to consider” and say plainly that we have not tested them |
On AI assistance
Our position is that you are entitled to know how a claim was established, not which software typed it. Routine drafting and editing assistance is disclosed once, here. What is never permitted is AI-generated evidence: test results, screenshots, operation counts and measurements must come from real runs. An AI description of a workflow that was never executed is a fabricated test, however it is labelled. We also do not use invented author personas.
Correcting errors
Material errors — a wrong price, a wrong commission rate, a workflow that does not work — are corrected within 72 hours of confirmation, on the page itself as well as in the corrections log. We do not silently edit factual claims.