Editorial policy

Our standards

• Usefulness over volume. We publish pages we believe are useful, and we would rather publish nothing than something thin.
• Sources you can check. Facts are backed by sources listed on the page, primary sources whenever possible.
• No invented experience. We never say "we tested" unless we actually ran and recorded a test. Most of our content is research-based, and we say so.
• No fake signals. We don't publish fake ratings, reviews, testimonials, awards or author credentials. GitHub stars are shown as stars, never as a rating.
• Our own words. We summarise, compare and analyse. We don't copy READMEs, vendor pages or video descriptions.

How sources are selected

Official documentation, pricing pages, repositories, release notes, research papers and datasets come first, with independent reporting for context. A marketing claim is not a fact until it can be checked.

AI assistance

AI helps with research and drafting, and every page where it helped says so. A person runs every editing session, every claim is checked against a source before publication, and the site applies its own quality checks again when content arrives. The AI disclosure has the details.

Independence

Rankings, scores and recommendations aren't for sale. If we ever add sponsored placements or affiliate links, they will be clearly labelled.

Updates

Facts that change (pricing, availability, licences, project activity) are re-checked in later editing sessions. Each page shows when its facts were last checked, and its "updated" date moves only when the content changes.

Corrections

If you spot an error, contact us with the page URL and what's wrong. Verified corrections are made promptly, and substantive changes update the page's "updated" date.