How recommendations are made
Editorial policy
Our standard is simple: cite the fact, explain the judgment, name the limitation, and correct the record when it changes.
1. Scope comes before recommendation
A product is evaluated for a defined job and audience. We do not call something the best for everyone. Every guide names a likely best fit and a reason a buyer may want to skip it.
2. Primary sources anchor factual claims
Key specifications are checked against the manufacturer, a current authorized listing, a product manual, or another first party source. Secondary sources may add context, but they do not replace the primary record for basic product facts.
3. Evidence and editorial judgment stay separate
A published dimension, runtime, or compatibility range is a sourced fact. Whether that specification makes a product practical for a particular buyer is editorial judgment. Guides make that distinction clear.
4. Testing status is explicit
We never imply hands on use when it did not happen. A specification based assessment says so near the top of the guide and again in the method section. If hands on testing is added later, the method, conditions, and date will be documented.
5. Prices and availability are not frozen in time
Retail price, seller, stock, and included variations can change quickly. We direct readers to the current listing rather than presenting a stale price as permanent. Product rich result markup is not used unless the underlying offer information can be kept accurate.
6. Affiliate relationships do not remove the tradeoffs
Affiliate links help support the site, but a commission does not turn a weak fit into a recommendation. Limitations, recurring costs, setup constraints, and compatibility checks belong in the same guide as the benefits.
7. Corrections are part of the product
Reader corrections are reviewed against the source record. Material factual corrections are made promptly and the reviewed date is updated. Public comments are moderated for relevance, privacy, spam, and unsupported claims.