These are the rules we hold ourselves to. They're here so you can hold us to them too.

Sourcing

  • Primary sources first.We link the vendor spec sheet, the filing, the changelog, the paper — not another outlet's write-up of it. Where another publication broke a story, we say so and link them.
  • We don't republish.Other outlets are leads, not copy. If we can't add something checkable, we don't publish the piece.
  • Unconfirmed is labelled unconfirmed.Rumours, leaks and roadmap talk are marked as such. We'd rather be second and right.

What we don't do

We do not run our own hardware benchmarks. When we discuss performance, the numbers come from the manufacturer or a named third party, and we attribute them. You will not find an invented benchmark result or a review score presented as if we'd measured it ourselves on this site — and for the same reason, our verdicts deliberately carry no star-rating markup in search results.

Corrections

When we get something wrong we fix it in place and stamp the article as updated, rather than quietly editing or deleting it. Substantive corrections are noted in the article itself. If you spot an error, email us — it goes to the top of the pile.

Independence and money

  • Nobody pays for coverage.We don't sell articles, and no company sees a piece before it publishes.
  • Affiliate links are marked and carry the technical attributes search engines expect. They may earn us a commission, never change your price, and never decide what we cover or what we conclude.
  • Deals are checked against price history.A discount only runs here if the "before" price was real.

Images

We use official press and manufacturer assets, our own screenshots, or properly licensed images — and we credit them. We do not lift photography from other publications. Where an image is illustrative rather than the exact product being discussed, the caption says so.

AI

We use AI tooling in our workflow — for research sweeps, drafting and editing. It does not change the standards above: every factual claim is checked against a primary source before publication, and a human is accountable for what goes out. We don't publish machine output unreviewed.

Questions

Anything unclear here, or think we've broken one of our own rules? Tell us.