Editorial standards
Our job is to help readers distinguish evidence, observation, third-party claims, and unresolved risk.
Policy reviewed August 19, 2026
We prefer regulator records, app-store listings, signed software metadata, operator terms, and reproducible technical observations. Affiliate copy, screenshots without provenance, and repeated third-party claims are not treated as proof.
When a page says “reviewed,” we checked the page content and visible destination details on the stated date. We do not claim to have deposited, withdrawn, reverse-engineered, or malware-certified software unless the article documents that exact test.
Unknown publisher identity, missing checksums, third-party file hosts, unclear licensing, and changing operator relationships are surfaced prominently instead of being converted into positive marketing claims.
Advertising or referral compensation does not change the evidence standard. A paid relationship must be disclosed near the relevant link and does not authorize “safe,” “official,” or “best” labels.
High-risk access pages are reviewed when destinations change or credible reports arrive. Thin, duplicative, outdated, or unverifiable pages may be rewritten, noindexed, consolidated, or removed.
Factual corrections are evaluated against evidence and applied in the relevant article. Material updates should include a refreshed review date and a clear explanation when the original guidance materially changed.
Scheduled quality control
At least once each quarter, core app-access pages are checked for destination changes, HTTP/HTTPS transport, redirects, published file versions and checksums, certificate or signer disclosures, broken citations, and unsupported safety or regulatory claims.
Material destination or security reports trigger an earlier review; the next scheduled date is not a guarantee that an external file remains unchanged.
Include the page URL, the statement at issue, your proposed correction, and a source readers can independently inspect.
Contact the editorial team