Editorial trust & transparency
How we review
A consistent method, adapted to the job a product is intended to do.
Define the scope
A review begins with the intended user, use case and evaluation date. The reviewer records the plan and version assessed, access provided by a merchant and any limits on the evaluation. A research-only overview must be described as such. It cannot imply that hands-on testing took place.
Use clear criteria
Where relevant, evaluate ease of use, features, output quality, value and support. Each published score needs a written rationale and a recorded assessment. Missing evidence should result in an explicit limitation or an omitted score. A review should explain who the product suits, who may need something else and why.
Compare like with like
Use a consistent brief for products being compared. Distinguish tested observations from specifications and current merchant claims. An editor's choice must have an explicit rationale. A best-of article should explain its selection method, scope and limitations rather than imply it covers every product on the market.
Publish with context
Completed reviews include an author, relevant dates, disclosures and a clear account of limitations. Pricing and merchant terms may change. Readers should confirm the final offer on the merchant website. The initial research previews do not claim to have completed this method.