Editorial Standards

Editorial standards

BenchUX articles should be useful, source-aware, and clear about what is known versus inferred.

These rules apply to reviews, comparisons, guides, roundups, and hub pages.

Last updated: Jun 12, 2026

SourcingProduct claims should trace back to official pages, documentation, changelogs, credible public feedback, or visible source notes.
AccuracyPricing and feature claims are written cautiously because vendors change plans and packaging.
IndependenceAffiliate relationships and ads do not determine recommendations, rankings, or criticisms.
CorrectionsReaders can request corrections by emailing [email protected] with the URL and evidence.

AI assistance policy

BenchUX may use automation to help draft, format, and QA articles. The pipeline blocks unsupported testing claims, invented quotes, unsupported analyst claims, malformed links, and source-note problems before publication.

Professional quality bar

  • Every post needs a useful final verdict or conclusion, visible source context, at least one internal BenchUX link, and clean rendered tables/lists.
  • Comparison and roundup rankings must match their title promises and tables.
  • Articles should explain who should choose, avoid, or further investigate a tool.

Contact for editorial issues

Email [email protected] with the article URL, the claim in question, and a source that supports the correction.