Editorial methodology #

Our aim is not to publish as many articles as possible. It is to give useful, understandable answers that reflect the strength of the available evidence.

How an article is checked #

We follow the same process wherever the subject allows:

1. define the exact question the page needs to answer;
2. identify claims involving health, safety, law, figures, history or a particular product;
3. consult sources as close as possible to the original evidence;
4. compare several sources when a conclusion is disputed or depends on context;
5. remove figures that cannot be verified and wording that is too absolute;
6. connect the main claims to their references;
7. review the completed article for consistency, internal links and clearly stated limits.

Source hierarchy #

Different questions call for different sources. We favour:

• public and health authorities for recommendations, regulatory limits and safety;
• official texts for rules currently in force;
• systematic reviews, meta-analyses and peer-reviewed studies for scientific questions;
• statistics from identifiable organisations for market and consumption data;
• manuals and official manufacturer pages for the use, maintenance and compatibility of an appliance;
• recognised specialist bodies for technical coffee standards.

A company announcement can establish what the company has said. On its own, it cannot prove that a commercial promise is true. Likewise, a single study can rarely establish a rule that applies to everyone.

Health and safety #

Articles about caffeine, pregnancy, children, sleep or digestion are for information. They offer general reference points, state uncertainties and recommend professional advice when the answer depends on a diagnosis, treatment or individual sensitivity.

The manual for a particular coffee machine always takes precedence over general maintenance advice. We also avoid recommending mixtures of household products that could release hazardous fumes or damage an appliance.

Supporting tools #

Tools may assist with writing, research, link checking and technical analysis. They can help identify inconsistencies, compare wording or make routine checks more efficient. They are not treated as sources and do not replace reading the cited documents or taking editorial responsibility for the published text.

Dates, updates and limits #

The date shown on an article is its publication date. An additional update date indicates a meaningful editorial revision. Minor language or presentation corrections may still be made without changing that date.

No serious method can promise that a website will remain 100 per cent accurate. Evidence, prices, products and rules change. We therefore make claims traceable and correct reported errors promptly.

Request a correction #

Send the URL, the passage concerned and your source to [email protected]. A significant factual correction belongs in the article itself and should not be hidden behind a stylistic change.