Editorial policy
Last reviewed with the public launch of this site. This page explains how coverage is produced, verified, and corrected.
Independence
Commercial relationships never influence rank, scores, or editorial verdicts (principle P-04). Any sponsorship, affiliate, or advertising relationship is disclosed on the affected tool profile and in our public logs. Vendors cannot buy position, and rankings are computed from a published methodology per category.
Evidence and unknowns
Every published value carries a source and an evidence state. When we do not know something, we show “—” and say unknown — never a silent default of zero or false (P-02). Scores and confidence are separate concepts: a high score with weak evidence is labeled as such (P-03).
Editorial reviews
Editorial reviews reflect hands-on testing by named editors and are kept strictly separate from user reviews. Tools that have not been editorially reviewed say so on their profile rather than implying a verdict. Vendors may respond to reviews — responses are labeled official, moderated, and can never alter a review or its score.
Vendor contributions
Vendors claim tools through domain verification and propose changes through an audited proposal workflow. Auto-published vendor data is labeled vendor-sourced and is never marked verified until an editor confirms it. Every applied change leaves a revision-history entry and an audit record.
Corrections
We correct mistakes in public. Corrections to profiles, articles, and rankings appear in the corrections feed with the date and the change. Article bodies preserve full revision trails; ranking changes are explained per ranking update.
User reviews
User reviews follow the review policy: one review per person per tool, moderation before publication, and weighting for recency and integrity that never silently deletes dissent. Reviews only affect rank through an explicit, published methodology factor.