What Our Editorial Policy Means
This Editorial Policy sets the standards we use when publishing calculators, educational guides, buying information, measurement tools and explanatory articles. Our goal is to create content that answers a real user question, explains important limitations and gives readers enough context to make informed decisions.
We aim to publish content for people first rather than producing pages only to attract search traffic. That means each article should have a clear purpose, original structure, useful explanation and a reason to exist beyond repeating information already available elsewhere.
Where a topic depends on standards, regulations, scientific information, financial guidance, product documentation or specialist terminology, we prefer authoritative primary sources whenever practical. When a source is secondary, we assess whether it is credible, current and directly relevant to the claim being made.
Useful Before Optimised
SEO helps readers discover a page, but usefulness determines what belongs on it. We write to satisfy the reader's task, not to force keywords into every paragraph.
Evidence Over Assumption
Claims that can be verified should be supported by suitable evidence. We avoid presenting guesses, marketing claims or anecdotes as established facts.
Context Matters
Numbers and recommendations can be misleading without context. We explain assumptions, ranges, exceptions, definitions and practical limitations where they affect interpretation.
Editorial Independence
Commercial relationships should not determine our conclusions. Paid relationships, affiliate links or sponsored placements must be disclosed where relevant.
Correction & Maintenance
Publishing is not the end of the process. Important factual errors are corrected, stale information is updated and material changes should be reflected clearly.
Human Accountability
Tools may assist research, structure or quality checks, but responsibility for the published page remains with the editorial process and the people maintaining the site.
From search intent to published page
A simplified view of how an article or calculator moves through the editorial process.
Our source hierarchy
Primary & Official Sources
Government guidance, regulators, standards bodies, original research, official documentation and first-party technical references.
Recognised Specialist Sources
Established professional organisations, academic institutions, industry bodies and expert publications with clear editorial standards.
Credible Secondary Reporting
Used when it adds context, explains a development or points to a source that can be independently checked.
User-Generated or Commercial Claims
Treated cautiously and not used as sole evidence for important factual, safety, legal, financial or scientific claims.
How we evaluate a source
We consider who produced the information, whether the source has relevant expertise, when it was published or updated, whether the claim can be checked elsewhere, and whether there is a commercial or advocacy interest that could affect presentation.
For topics that change over time, recency matters. A source that was authoritative several years ago may no longer describe the current rule, price, standard, software behaviour or official guidance. When freshness is material, we check the date and use the latest reliable version we can identify.
We also distinguish between evidence and interpretation. If a source states a fact, we may report that fact. If we draw a conclusion from several sources, the article should make clear that the conclusion is an analysis rather than a quotation from an authority.
External editorial references
Our people-first approach is consistent with Google Search Central's guidance on helpful, reliable, people-first content. For accuracy and corrections, we also look to principles reflected in the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice. When commercial endorsements or affiliate relationships are involved, transparent disclosure is a core requirement; the FTC Endorsement Guides are a useful reference point for clear disclosure practice.
- 1Check material factual claimsFacts that materially affect a reader's understanding should be checked against suitable sources before publication.
- 2Separate fact, estimate and opinionWe avoid wording that makes an estimate sound exact or an editorial judgment sound like an externally verified fact.
- 3Test calculators and formulasInteractive tools should be checked with sample inputs, boundary cases and known outputs. Assumptions, units and rounding should be explained when they could affect the result.
- 4Review links and citationsWe check that important external links support the point made and that internal links genuinely help the reader continue their task.
- 5Check language for overstatementWords such as “best”, “guaranteed”, “safe”, “always”, “exact” or “official” require strong support. Where certainty is not justified, we use qualified language.
- 6Use specialist review when neededWhen a topic requires professional interpretation, a suitable expert or authoritative source may be necessary before we publish or materially update the content.
Transparent Inputs
Users should be able to understand what each field means, what units are required and what assumptions the tool makes.
Tested Outputs
We test representative inputs and edge cases so obvious calculation, conversion and formatting errors can be found before publication.
Clear Limitations
A calculator is an aid, not a substitute for professional measurement, diagnosis, legal advice, regulated financial advice or a retailer's final specification.
For example, our Ring Size Calculator UK explains that jewellery sizing charts may differ slightly between jewellers, while our Engagement Ring Calculator frames its output as a planning aid rather than a universal rule for what someone “should” spend. This is the type of limitation we want to make visible rather than burying it in fine print.
Keywords should support clarity
We use primary and related keywords in page titles, headings, introductions and article copy when they accurately describe the topic. We do not deliberately repeat a phrase at the expense of readability, and we do not create irrelevant sections only to place additional keywords.
Search intent matters more than keyword density. A strong page should answer the questions a user is likely to have, use descriptive headings and make important information easy to find on both desktop and mobile.
Internal and external links
Internal links are added when another page provides a useful next step, such as a related calculator, guide or measurement page. External links are used when an authoritative source gives readers original evidence, an official rule or deeper specialist detail.
We do not add links simply to increase link count. Anchor text should describe the destination naturally, and important claims should not rely on irrelevant or low-quality pages.
AI tools may be used to assist with research organisation, outlining, drafting alternatives, code generation, data formatting, spelling, readability checks or identifying questions that deserve further verification. Using a tool does not remove the need for editorial judgment.
We do not treat an AI-generated statement as a source. Facts that matter should be verified against suitable external evidence or established internal data. Content should also be reviewed for fabricated citations, numerical errors, outdated claims, missing context, repetitive wording and accidental overconfidence.
Where AI contributes to a workflow, the standard remains the same: the final page should be useful, original, accurate enough for its purpose and accountable to the site's editorial process. Google Search Central's guidance on generative AI content similarly explains that AI can assist content creation, while scaled generation without added value may conflict with spam policies.
| Situation | Editorial Standard | Reader Disclosure |
|---|---|---|
| Affiliate link | The commercial relationship must not determine factual claims, rankings or conclusions. | We should disclose that a commission may be earned where such links are used. |
| Sponsored content | Sponsorship should not be disguised as independent editorial content. | Sponsored or paid material should be clearly labelled. |
| Free product or service | Receiving something of value should not be hidden when it may affect how readers interpret a recommendation. | A material relationship should be disclosed clearly and close to the relevant content. |
| Brand mention without payment | A brand may be mentioned because it is relevant to the topic, not because compensation is assumed. | No commercial disclosure is needed if there is genuinely no material relationship. |
When we correct content
If we identify a significant factual error, misleading statement, broken calculation or material omission, we aim to correct it as soon as reasonably practical. Minor spelling, formatting and style changes may be fixed without a formal correction note when they do not change the meaning.
For substantial changes, the page may receive an updated review date or a correction note explaining what changed. The prominence of a correction should reflect the importance of the original error.
When we update content
Pages may be reviewed when an official source changes, a tool no longer behaves as documented, a regulation or standard is updated, reader feedback identifies a gap, or a page's examples and links become stale.
An updated date should represent a meaningful review, not a cosmetic timestamp change made only to make content appear fresh.
- ✓Relevant conflicts should be disclosedWriters, reviewers or contributors should disclose financial, professional or personal relationships that could reasonably affect how readers interpret their work.
- ✓Expertise should be represented accuratelyWe do not inflate credentials or imply professional qualifications that a contributor does not hold.
- ✓Quotations should preserve meaningQuotes should not be edited in a way that materially changes what the source intended.
- ✓Original work should remain originalWe do not knowingly reproduce another publisher's article or pass copied wording off as our own. Where another source's idea, data or wording is materially relied upon, attribution should be appropriate.
Health, legal, financial, safety and other high-stakes topics require additional care because incorrect information can cause more than inconvenience. When we cover such subjects, we aim to rely more heavily on authoritative sources, make uncertainty visible, distinguish general information from professional advice and avoid presenting a general-purpose calculator as a substitute for an individual assessment.
If the information is jurisdiction-specific, the article should identify the relevant country or region rather than implying that one rule applies everywhere. If a professional decision depends on personal circumstances, we should say so plainly.
Readers can help us improve accuracy by reporting broken links, calculation problems, unclear wording, missing context or information that appears out of date. A useful correction request should identify the page, the specific statement or result in question, why it appears incorrect and—where possible—a reliable source that supports the correction.
We review credible feedback on its merits. We do not promise to make every requested change, but factual concerns should be assessed independently of whether the feedback is positive or critical.
Editorial commitment
Our objective is simple: publish content that is genuinely useful, transparent about its limits, careful with evidence and open to correction. Search optimisation, commercial goals and production tools should support that objective—not override it.