Editorial policy

This policy governs everything readers see on linkbuilding.wiki, from method and sourcing to dating and corrections. It states what the site does and does not publish, as rules of the publication.

Sourcing

Every changeable fact cites a primary source with an access date, as the sourcing rule requires. Primary means the provider's own pages, official registers, review platforms, and published documentation sources. Secondary coverage appears only where no primary source exists, and the article labels it as such. The build checks that every citation key resolves and that every source entry is cited.

Dating

Volatile facts carry "As of " dating across prices, headcount, ratings, review counts, and service lists. Scores carry their round date, sources carry day-level access dates, and nothing volatile stands undated.

Attribution

Provider claims appear as attributed claims, in the standard form "The company states…", never as established facts. Direct observations use the labelled form "Our review found…", always with a citation. Where evidence is thin, the article says what was not found rather than what might be true.

Citation

Inline citations sit immediately after the sentence that each source key supports in turn. The references section of each article is generated from the sources map, so articles carry no hand-typed reference lists. Every article ends with a See also section linking related pages on our site.

Revision history

Each article carries a revision log naming the editor, the date, and the reason for every change. Score movements are written by comparison between rounds, so every changed band, penalty, score, or rank gains a dated entry automatically. Manual editorial entries stand alongside the machine entries, each with a name and reason.

Edits are shared across the editorial board. Each change is signed by the editor who made it, and routine work rotates through the board so no article depends on one person. Every article's log is on its History tab, Recent changes lists every revision across the site by day, and each editor's page lists the revisions they signed.

Talk notes

Talk pages hold signed and dated editor notes written in a plain working voice. Each note states what was checked, what was uncertain, and what would change the grade. Alleged but unproven findings stay in Talk and never enter the article until evidence meets the published standard.

Best-for labels

Ranking pages carry an editorial "Best for" line with pros and cons for the top entries in the table. These labels are editor judgements drawn only from the cited public evidence on the page, such as published prices, stated scope, terms and recorded samples. They summarise fit for common buyer needs and budgets. They never alter the published scorecards, and table order always follows the computed results, not the labels. Readers who disagree with a label, or spot an error in the underlying evidence, can challenge it through the corrections route described below.

Corrections

Readers may report errors by email to the corrections address published on every page:

• [email protected]

Every report receives acknowledgement within five working days and a substantive reply within twenty working days. Upheld corrections appear in the article with a dated revision entry stating what changed and why.

What the site does not do

The site accepts no paid placement in rankings or articles, and no provider-supplied figure enters any score. Rankings render from computed results only, and every input traces to a cited public source. These stand as rules of publication, applied to every article and every round alike.

See also

• Methodology
• Editors
• Recent changes