Editorial policy
The failure mode in this subject is not writing badly. It is writing too confidently. These are the rules we hold ourselves to, published so you can check whether we are keeping them.
On numbers
- Platform rates, thresholds and limits are given as ranges with the month checked, never as flat statements. They change, and a flat number eventually becomes misinformation.
- Every platform figure is marked as subject to the current official page, with a link you can follow to check it wherever one exists.
- No invented statistics, user counts, case studies or precise timestamps. "Tested on the 14th at 14:23" is the kind of false precision we will not write — it reads as credible and cannot be verified.
- Illustrative figures are labelled as assumptions. Amounts used to demonstrate a calculation say so plainly.
On judgement
- No price predictions, no calls, no recommending specific assets.
- No promises about returns. Anything touching returns carries the risk qualifier and defers to the official rules.
- We will say "this one is not for you". When a line does not pay for a particular kind of reader, we say so, even where that costs us a conversion.
- Opinions are about our own practice only. Where a piece states a preference — "I sell at listing by default" — that is the author's own approach. It is not a criticism of the platform and it is not advice to you.
On the tools
What the page claims and what the code does have to match. All five tools compute entirely in your browser: no interface is called, no account is read, nothing is stored locally. So that is what the pages say, rather than "real-time" or "connected directly to the API" — phrasings that sound more impressive and would not be true.
The tools do not follow rule changes automatically, and that is written on each tool page rather than buried here.
On images
Screenshots on this site are captured from publicly accessible pages, contain no account information, and are captioned with the month of capture. After a platform redesign an old screenshot stops matching reality, and we replace it when we update the piece.
We do not describe an image as "from testing" when it is not, and we do not leave placeholders pointing at images that do not exist.
How much AI is involved
Stating this plainly, because avoiding the question is itself suspicious: AI tools are used here for research organisation, first drafts and layout. Every platform rule is checked by a person against the official public page before publication, and the facts, figures and judgements are the editor's responsibility.
We do not pass AI-generated images off as photographs, we do not let AI invent cases or data, and fluent text is not a reason to publish — fluency and correctness are different properties. When something is wrong, that is on us, not on a tool.
When we find an error
- Verify. Check against the current official page to establish which side is actually wrong.
- Fix. Correct the text and update the page's modified date.
- Record. Anything that could change a reader's decision goes in corrections, with what changed and why. Typos and formatting repairs that do not affect understanding are not logged separately.
- Reply. When a reader reported the error, we tell them what we did about it.
We do not fix things quietly. Keeping a log costs us the admission that we were wrong, but a rules site that has never been wrong is not believable — the rules change every month.
Update cadence
Rule content is updated when the platform changes something, not on a calendar. When nothing substantive has changed we do not refresh the modified date to look active — that is a signal aimed at search engines and it tells readers nothing.
Corrections by email
The address is on contact. Being told we are wrong is the most welcome kind of message we get, and it is far quicker to act on with a screenshot or the URL you were looking at.