---
title: "Editorial Policy"
description: "Our rules for topic selection, source quality, claims, rankings, editorial independence, updates and corrections."
updated: "2026-09-15"
---

# Editorial Policy

Our rules for topic selection, source quality, claims, rankings, editorial independence, updates and corrections.

## Reader question first

Every page begins with a defined reader job. The home page explains the category, the Reviews hub compares five products, individual reviews answer service-specific decisions, and Guides teach repeatable workflows. Closely related keywords are assigned to one canonical page when they express the same need. We do not publish a new page only to repeat a phrase.

Products are selected when they represent a distinct workflow and enough current material exists for a useful review. A service can be omitted when its product status, pricing or adult-content boundary cannot be described responsibly. Inclusion is editorial coverage, not certification.

## Evidence before verdict

Mutable claims should come from current official product, pricing, help, checkout or policy material. Direct interface observation may support what a public route shows. We record the checked date and separate an official statement from our interpretation. Conflicting statements are preserved as uncertainty rather than converted into false precision.

A documented feature does not prove output quality. We do not imply a paid test, repeated prompt benchmark or account-level inspection unless a reproducible record exists. Promotional galleries inform the description of positioning but do not become evidence of consistency.

## Writing and scoring

Each review covers the starting action, continuity tools, image and video path, US-dollar pricing, free access, best-fit user and decisive limitation. Annual offers show the amount charged as well as the monthly equivalent. Checkout-dependent prices are labeled, and stale promotional numbers are not substituted for missing evidence.

Seven weighted criteria produce the visible score. Missing performance evidence receives a neutral or cautious treatment rather than an optimistic estimate. Scores help order a shortlist; the prose explains whether that order matches a specific reader.

## Editorial independence

Every product follows the same source requirements, scoring weights and limitation rules. A reviewed company cannot buy edits, suppress criticism or approve the final verdict. Logos are used for identification and commentary, while supplied AI-generated models and videos remain editorial media rather than product-output evidence.

## Updates and corrections

Prices receive a defined freshness window and should be checked again when that window expires or a credible correction arrives. Product availability, media features and policy changes may require earlier review. A material update changes the visible date and every synchronized format affected by the claim.

Readers, rights holders and product teams can submit a factual correction through [corrections](/corrections/). We compare the report with the current source and existing record. Correct evidence can change the page; pressure or brand preference cannot.

_Last reviewed: September 15, 2026._