A useful answer should come with a way to check it.
These standards guide the content we publish at SearchGlint, from a short technical explanation to a guide about AI search. They are editorial commitments, not a claim that every article has been independently audited.
Start with a real task
A page should help a reader understand a question, make a decision or complete a task. We keep closely related answers together when that makes the page more useful. We do not create near-duplicate articles simply to target different wording of the same question.
Show the basis for a claim
- Documentation: prefer the platform’s own documentation for supported features, requirements and stated policies. Distinguish what the platform says from what a test demonstrates.
- Observation: describe the query, date, environment or sample when those details affect a finding. A single search result is not proof of a universal ranking rule.
- Interpretation: label analysis and recommendations as such. Explain important uncertainty or competing explanations.
- Measurement: name the source and scope of a number. Do not present estimates, ranges or missing data as exact measurements.
Make advice usable
Guides should give the answer early, explain prerequisites and show the steps that matter. A risky change needs a test or rollback path. Comparisons should state what is being compared and which trade-offs affect the decision. Tool pages should explain what the tool checks, what it does not check and how to interpret its output.
Keep AI search claims in proportion
Access, eligibility and selection are different things. We do not describe structured data, crawler access, a content format or an optimization tactic as a guarantee of an AI citation or a search position. A recommendation must be useful on its stated evidence, not on an unsupported promise about an opaque system.
Use AI with editorial responsibility
AI may assist with research organization, drafting, editing and code. It is not a source of authority by itself. Our publishing standard requires a human publishing decision and checks of material claims, linked sources and originality. We do not fabricate quotations, biographies, test results or firsthand experience. See the AI content policy for the related review requirements.
Separate commercial interests from conclusions
A paid placement must be identified as paid. An affiliate relationship must be disclosed near the relevant recommendation or link. Neither should buy a favorable conclusion, a ranking guarantee or the removal of a warranted correction. Reviews must distinguish hands-on testing from research based on documentation; a product mention alone is not a recommendation.
Update for substance
Changes to platform guidance, a reproducible bug or evidence that affects a recommendation are reasons to revisit a page. An updated date should reflect a meaningful revision or review, not a cosmetic freshness change. News should distinguish the date of an event from the date of publication.
Material errors are handled under our corrections policy. Readers can find submission guidance on the Contact page.