Trust is in the details.

Start with the reader’s question

A useful piece begins with a specific need. Future comparisons should explain who an option might suit, who it might not suit and which alternatives were considered. A broad “best” label without a defined use case is not enough.

Separate observation from inference

Hands-on reviews must identify what was tested, how it was obtained, the conditions and the limitations. Research-based articles must say that they are based on sources and must not imply that a product was personally used. Opinion must be recognisable as opinion.

Make evidence inspectable

Material factual claims should link to their source and carry relevant dates and market context. A manufacturer’s description is a manufacturer’s claim, not an independent test result. We will not invent specifications, prices, photographs of tested products, testimonials or performance results.

Explain relationships where they matter

Any future commission, sponsorship, gift or loan that could affect how a reader understands an article must be disclosed clearly near the relevant content. A disclosure should be easy to notice and understand, not only available on a separate page. See our funding policy.

Use AI with human accountability

AI may assist with drafting or organisation. It cannot supply firsthand experience, verify its own claims or approve a piece for publication. A responsible human editor must check sources, wording, disclosures and any translation before release.

Keep a correction trail

Material corrections should explain what changed and when. New evidence may change a conclusion; a silent rewrite should not erase a substantive error. Send corrections with the relevant article and source through our Contact page.