Editorial guidelines

Every listing states a limitation

If a description does not say what the tool is bad at, it is not finished. This is the single rule that separates this site from a press release with navigation, and it applies to tools that pay us exactly as it applies to tools that do not.

Claims are checked, not repeated

We do not restate vendor marketing. A price on our page has been confirmed against the vendor's own pricing page and carries the date we confirmed it. A capability we describe is one a reviewer used.

Dates are real

The date on a listing is the day a person opened the tool. It is never generated by a script and never refreshed to clear a stale flag. Listings past 90 days display as stale, which is information rather than an embarrassment.

We name the reviewer

Every listing carries the name of whoever last checked it. Anonymous reviews are not published.

Rankings are editorial

Best-of lists are ordered by a reviewer against a stated test, described on each list. Payment cannot affect position. Each list states how it is funded and how many entries have never paid us.

We are willing to lose money on a verdict

At least one current best-of list concludes that a tool paying us is not the pick. If that ever stops being true, the lists have stopped being credible.

Corrections

If we are wrong, tell us and we fix it and note the change on the listing. Corrections are not negotiated with vendors.

What we do not publish

Listings for tools whose function is producing sexual imagery of a real, identifiable person without their consent. Content generated without a human writing it. Reviews of tools nobody opened.