Editorial standards
Rankings reflect fit rather than how well known a product is, and every entry names who it is wrong for. Every factual claim traces to a checkable source. Material errors are corrected, dated, and logged in public.
What we hold ourselves to, written down so you can hold us to it as well.
How coverage is decided
Rankings reflect fit rather than how well known a product is, and every entry names the organization it would be wrong for. A page that only tells you who a tool suits is half a page.
Placement is an editorial judgement about which product actually solves which problem, at which size of organization. Where we think something is the best answer for a particular case, we say so plainly, and we say who should look elsewhere. How that assessment is made is set out on the how software is assessed page.
We also do not accept free products in exchange for coverage. Where a paid plan is needed to assess something, we pay for it.
Accuracy
Every factual claim traces to a source a reader can open. Sources are listed on the page rather than buried, and linked where a public link exists.
If a claim cannot be sourced, it does not run. If a widely repeated figure does not survive checking, we say where it came from and why it is wrong, because that correction is usually more useful than the figure.
How sources are ranked, what happens when they conflict, and what our last-checked date actually means are all set out in the methodology.
What counts as a correction
We distinguish three things, and treat them differently.
| Type | What it covers | How we handle it |
|---|---|---|
| Correction | A wrong figure, threshold, deadline, rule, or a conclusion that changes | Fixed, dated, and logged publicly |
| Clarification | Accurate but open to misreading | Reworded, noted on the page if the meaning could have misled |
| Silent edit | Typography, formatting, a broken link, a rephrasing that changes nothing | Fixed without a log entry |
The test for a correction is simple: if a reader could have acted differently based on what we previously said, it gets logged.
Right of reply
Any organization described here can respond, at the contact page.
Where a factual error is identified, it is corrected and logged. Where the disagreement is one of judgement rather than fact, the response is published alongside the page so a reader can weigh both.
Right of reply does not mean right of removal. Accurate coverage stays up, and a request to take down something correct will be declined and may itself be noted on the page.
Anonymous sources
Rarely used, and never for a factual claim that could be sourced on the record.
Where anonymity is granted, the page explains why. A source’s identity is never disclosed to a third party, including one threatening legal action.
Conflicts of interest
Anyone writing here discloses any financial interest, employment history or personal relationship with an organization covered, and does not write about an organization where a current relationship exists.
If that ever becomes unavoidable, the relationship is stated at the top of the page rather than in a footnote.
On research tools
Research and drafting tools are used in production, as at most publications now. Every figure is read against its primary source by a person before publication, and no page is published unread.
We do not generate pages to occupy a keyword. If there is nothing useful to say, there is no page.
Complaints
If you think we have breached any of the above, say so at the contact page and describe what you believe was wrong.
You will get a substantive answer, not an acknowledgement. If we agree, the correction is made and logged. If we disagree, you get the reasoning, and you are free to publish it.