Research
We start with the reader decision, live search context and the business or technical question. For external claims, we prefer official documentation, primary research and direct platform sources.
How we research and review SEO guidance.
Last reviewed August 2026. Source links remain on each article where they are used.
Read the guidesWriting
Each page must have a distinct purpose and add useful synthesis, practical checks, original framing or first-hand delivery context. We do not publish scaled pages to cover wording variations.
Review
Guidance is reviewed for factual clarity, implementation risk, source support and commercial honesty. Regulated topics require appropriately qualified external review before we make material claims.
Editorial tools
Software may help organise notes, compare structures or check language. The editorial team remains responsible for source selection, factual review, final wording and publication.
Updates
Articles show an update month. We revisit pages when official guidance, platforms, legislation or material operating practice changes. Minor typographic corrections do not reset the date.
Corrections
If a material error is identified, we correct it promptly and review dependent pages. Send a URL, the disputed statement and supporting evidence through the contact page.
Source hierarchy
Closer to the evidence is better.
- 01Official platform documentation and standards
- 02Primary research and first-party data with methodology
- 03Direct expert or operational evidence
- 04Credible secondary synthesis, clearly attributed
Questions or corrections
Challenge the source, not just the conclusion.
We welcome specific corrections and conflicting evidence. We do not accept paid placement in editorial articles or exchange links for favourable coverage.
Send a correctionRead guidance with the evidence attached.
Send us the website, the SEO problem and the result you want. We will review it before recommending a scope.