Trust & standards · 03
Editorial standards
Who writes what, what we refuse to claim, and how corrections are handled. These rules bind every study, report, comparison, guide and board commentary on the site. Machine-drafted material is labelled as such on the page, and the per-app summaries are additionally kept out of the index.
03
The rules
- 01
Every claim ties to a figure we computed
If a sentence in a study cannot be traced to a number in the index, it is cut. Where a claim rests on judgement rather than measurement, it is written as judgement.
- 02
What is machine-drafted, what is human-reviewed, and how to tell
Studies and field guides are drafted with the assistance of a language model against figures computed from our index, and reviewed by our named author.
Commentary on our ranking boards and category reports is machine-drafted from the computed figures on the page it appears on, and is labelled as such on every page that carries it. It is not published unedited either: each draft passes an editorial gate that our named author defines and maintains, and that rejects the draft outright rather than publishing it if any of the following is true — it states a figure our data does not support, it reuses another page’s argument, it reads as drafting notes rather than finished prose, it stops mid-sentence, or it falls below our length floor. A draft that fails is withheld and the page carries no commentary at all until a later attempt passes. These pages are also excluded from advertising.
The per-app summaries are machine-drafted, labelled, and excluded from the index. Every figure in any of these, however drafted, is computed from our index and never estimated. We state which is which rather than implying a level of review we do not perform.
- 03
Nothing on this site is a review
We do not test apps in a lab. Comparisons state what was measured and what was not, and never imply hands-on testing we did not do.
- 04
Rankings are not for sale
No publisher can pay for a position, a mention or a recommendation. We use no affiliate links. Where a paid placement exists anywhere on the site it is visually separated and labelled.
- 05
Dates on everything
Every figure shows when it was read; every article shows when it was published and last revised. A page with no date is a page you cannot check.
- 06
Errors are logged in public
Corrections are recorded below with the date, what was wrong, and what changed. We do not silently edit published figures.
03 · continued
Sourcing & accuracy
How topics are chosen
Guides answer timeless, practical questions — the kind a real person asks before downloading, paying for, or deleting an app. We deliberately avoid topics that go stale quickly, so a guide you read today should still be accurate a year from now, even as the apps on our record boards change.
How we research and write
Each guide starts from a single clear question. We use AI tools to help draft and structure articles, and every guide is then reviewed against these rules before publication: plain language, no filler, no fear-mongering, durable accuracy. Guides carry the byline of Dor Bass, our founder, who is accountable for these standards and the record boards behind them. That byline reflects editorial ownership, not a claim of personal, hands-on experience with every app we mention.
How we handle sources
We list our sources at the bottom of every guide, strongly preferring official and primary sources such as Apple’s own support and developer documentation, alongside well-known, reputable publications. We prefer not to lean on forums, video pages, Q&A threads, or content farms, and we check that every link is live before it ships. Sources are further reading, not a guarantee — verify anything important for yourself.
Accuracy
App details, prices, ratings and policies change often, and our boards and studies recompute automatically so the figures stay current; each page shows when it was last updated. When we get something wrong we fix it — email [email protected] or use the contact page, and where a correction is material we note what changed. Always do your own research before acting on what you read here.
04
Corrections log
-
12 Nov 2026
Merged overlapping studies and corrected guide dates
Eight studies covered the same ground as another and have been merged into the study they overlapped. Each old address redirects there, and the sections that add something are carried over with their original dates. Most studies were also renamed after the question they answer, and eleven narrow studies were taken out of search results. Twelve field guides now show the date each was first published.
-
5 Nov 2026
Retired a study superseded by fresher data
Does National Wealth Buy Pricier Top Apps? (29 Aug 2026) found the paid share of top-chart apps flat across wealth tiers. The Free Lunch Divide (28 Oct 2026), using fresher chart data, does not support that finding, so the older study now redirects to it and its finding on languages and internet access is carried over.
-
5 Nov 2026
Retired a study superseded by a fuller dataset
The Rating Creep (24 Oct 2026) used data that ended in 2019 and concluded that the share of 17+ apps had risen only modestly. The Maturity Drift (2 Nov 2026), with data through 2023, shows a sharp rise after 2017. The older study now redirects to the newer one, which carries over two of its findings. New studies are now checked against every published question before they are written.
-
2 Sep 2026
Follow-up to the 31 August correction
The change described on 31 August did not keep board commentary in step with its table as intended. Commentary is now checked against its board each time the page is built and withheld if it names the wrong leader, and field guides show a dated notice when the board they describe has changed. We also reworded Standard 02: studies and guides are reviewed by our named author.
-
31 Aug 2026
Board commentary could fall behind its table
Commentary was refreshed only when a board's leading app changed, so its figures could fall behind the table beneath it. We changed when it is regenerated (see the 2 September follow-up), removed stray drafting text from some category reports, and narrowed Standard 02 to what our process guarantees.
-
25 Aug 2026
Author review of indexed board commentary
Commentary on our indexed ranking boards is now reviewed by our named author before publication. The computed per-app summaries remain machine-drafted and are excluded from search.
-
6 Aug 2026
Removed an inaccurate review label
Board analyses were labelled “editor-reviewed”. They are summaries computed from the figures on the page, so the label was removed sitewide and this page rewritten to match.
Report an error
Send the page, the figure, and what you believe it should be. We reply to every report, including the ones where we turn out to be right.