Editorial Policy
Research, not product testing
Articles must distinguish source facts from inferences and uncertain recommendations. The publication does not claim to have tested, used, or benchmarked a product without genuine evidence. No invented authors, credentials, testimonials, or ratings are permitted.
Guides and product assessments
Version-identification guides explain how to distinguish layouts and compare attributed specifications. They state their scope without assigning a product score, confidence label or buying verdict. Product assessments make evidence-backed recommendations under the scoring method. A guide cannot hide a documented serious defect or substitute for evidence needed to recommend a product.
Sources and verification dates
New articles require a named source registry and claim-to-source mappings. Prices and features carry last-verified dates. Sources may change after that date; readers should check the provider before buying.
Approval before publication
Automated checks flag missing evidence, metadata problems, unsupported first-hand language, and possible duplicates. A human must read the revision and sources, confirm factual support and useful coverage, and approve it before publication. Automated checks alone cannot establish factual accuracy.
Pace and existing articles
At most three approved new articles may publish in a Johannesburg calendar week. The owner plans two personal reviews weekly; a third article is not approved automatically. The older archive is being assessed separately and is not retrospectively certified by this policy.
Commercial relevance and corrections
Affiliate and product links should be relevant, optional next steps. No minimum word count or offer count is used as proof of quality. Corrections can be requested through the Contact page; actual revisions are dated, and overlapping topics should be improved or consolidated rather than multiplied.
Editorial policy · Affiliate disclosure · Contact and corrections