Editorial methodology
Our methodology
Our process separates discovery, evidence review, editorial judgement, publication approval, and commercial link management so readers can see a useful conclusion without unsupported certainty.
Reviewed
Responsibility
Who creates and reviews our content
Editorial pages are produced from a documented content record and reviewed against the standards described here. The editorial owner is responsible for deciding whether the evidence supports the public wording, whether material limitations are visible, and whether a page is ready to be indexed.
Publication approval is bound to the reviewed content. If substantive copy changes, the old approval no longer applies and the page must pass review again. This prevents a later edit from inheriting an approval that was granted to different claims.
Evidence
How we choose sources
We prefer first-party provider documentation for features, eligibility, prices, policies, ownership, and terms. Regulators, government services, recognised standards bodies, and original research are preferred for legal, safety, health, and technical context. Independent specialist sources can help identify questions or corroborate experience, but they do not replace primary evidence for a provider's current terms.
Sources are selected for relevance to the specific claim, not simply because they rank highly in search. We record the retrieval or review date for time-sensitive evidence and distinguish a source statement from our editorial interpretation of it.
Practical evaluation
When we test a service
First-hand testing is described only when it actually occurred. A test record should identify the workflow, date, device or plan where relevant, and the limits of what was observed. A sign-up check does not prove long-term reliability, and a test in one country does not establish availability elsewhere.
When no first-hand test has been completed, we use documented evidence and clearly framed verification questions. We do not use phrases that imply personal experience merely to make a review sound more authoritative.
Comparison logic
How rankings are ordered
A ranking starts with the reader task and category-specific criteria. Relevant factors may include functional fit, material limitations, privacy and security controls, support, cancellation, compatibility, total cost context, and geographic eligibility. The weighting must match the stated purpose of the guide.
Position is not sold to a provider. Commercial availability can affect whether a button is present, but it must not be presented as evidence that a service performs better. If the available facts do not support a defensible order, the page remains a research or comparison draft rather than receiving an invented score.
Maintenance
Updates and corrections
Published pages are scheduled for periodic review and should be checked sooner when a provider changes ownership, pricing, availability, product scope, terms, or a material policy. A dynamically displayed year is presentation, not proof that the underlying evidence is current.
Material corrections should update the affected conclusion, the evidence date, and the publication approval. Readers can use the corrections route described on this site to identify a claim and provide a primary source for review.
Revenue separation
How affiliate relationships are handled
Some outbound buttons may later use affiliate links. The destination registry is maintained separately from editorial content so a direct link can be replaced with an approved affiliate destination in one controlled location. That change must not rewrite the evidence, ranking reason, or review conclusion.
Commercial links are identified in the page markup and open separately from the comparison. Compensation may be received after an eligible action, at no additional charge imposed by Top10. Availability and offer terms remain the provider's responsibility and must be checked at the destination.