Editorial policy

Every post carries a named author with a byline that links to a profile page listing their background, what they work on, and where else they publish. We do not publish under a house byline, a brand name, or an invented persona.

Authors write about subjects they have direct working experience with. When a post covers something outside an author’s day-to-day, we say so in the post and name the practitioner we checked it with.

EDIT: name your actual authors here, or describe how someone becomes one. If you are a single-author blog, say that plainly. It is a stronger signal than implying a masthead you do not have.

Before anything is published, it goes through the following:

1. Factual review. Every statistic, date, quotation, and product claim is traced to a primary source. Numbers that cannot be traced are removed rather than softened.
2. Technical review. Every code sample and command is run against the versions the post names. A post that pins a version has been tested on that version.
3. Editorial review. A second person reads for accuracy, structure, and whether the post answers the question it promises in the title.

EDIT: if you are one person and steps two and three are the same pass, say that. Describe the review you run, not the review you would run with a staff of six.

If something here is wrong, we want to fix it, and we want the fix to be visible rather than quiet.

Email corrections@example.com with the post URL and the specific claim you are disputing. You will get a reply within five working days, including when the answer is that we are keeping the post as written and why.

What happens next depends on what is wrong:

• Factual error. We correct the text and add a dated correction note at the foot of the post describing what changed. We do not silently edit a claim out of existence.
• Outdated but once accurate. We update the post and change its modified date. The original claim stays visible in the update note where the distinction matters.
• Typo or broken link. Fixed without a note, and without touching the modified date.

That last rule is the one worth keeping. The modified date on a post is a freshness signal to both readers and search engines, and bumping it for a typo is a small lie that accumulates into a site whose dates mean nothing.

We use AI tools in this work and we would rather describe how than let you guess. What follows is the boundary we hold.

We use it for: research assistance and finding sources we then read ourselves, outlining and structural feedback, drafting passages a human then rewrites, editing for clarity, and generating the routine metadata around a post.

We do not use it for: publishing a draft no human has read end to end, generating statistics or quotations, inventing experience an author does not have, or producing citations without opening every source first.

A named human author is accountable for every claim in every post, whatever tool helped produce the sentence it sits in. That accountability is the thing that does not change.

EDIT: state your real boundary. An honest narrow policy beats an aspirational broad one.

Claims that are not self-evident carry a link to where they came from, inline, at the point the claim is made. We link to the primary source rather than to coverage of it: the paper rather than the press release, the documentation rather than the blog post about the documentation.

Where a source is behind a paywall we say so. Where a number comes from a vendor with an interest in it, we name the vendor next to the number. Where we could not verify something we wanted to use, we leave it out rather than hedge it into the text.

Sources are dated in the post because a link to a moving document is a claim about what it said when we read it, not about what it says now.

EDIT: this section is a stub because only you know the answer. State whether you take paid placements, run affiliate links, accept review units, or write about products you have a financial interest in, and how each of those is disclosed on the page where it appears. If the answer is none of them, say that in one sentence. Either answer is fine; the omission is what costs you.

Corrections and factual disputes: corrections@example.com.

Everything we publish is listed on the blog index.