Editorial Guidelines

1.0

Our Editorial Responsibility

BufferApps product content should help readers understand products, not simply repeat marketing language. Each page should make its purpose clear, use language that a prospective buyer can understand and explain material limitations.

Editorial teams should be especially careful when a statement could influence a purchasing decision, such as a claim about:

SecurityData handlingUptimeSavingsPerformanceLicence rights

2.0

Research and Evidence

Start with primary sources wherever practical. Official product pages, documentation, pricing pages, terms, release notes and company announcements are useful for establishing what a provider says it offers.

Primary sources

Official product pagesDocumentationPricing pagesTermsRelease notesCompany announcements

Supporting context

Public review sitesCommunity discussionsSocial posts

Public review sites, community discussions and social posts may add context about user experience, but should be treated as individual or community-generated evidence rather than definitive proof.

A report should not imply that BufferApps has tested a product unless an actual test was performed and documented.

3.0

Ratings and Editorial Independence

The BufferApps editorial rating is an editorial assessment made under a documented methodology. The rating should be supported by a rationale and a record of the methodology version used.

A rating must not be increased, reduced or otherwise manipulated solely because of:

AdvertisingAffiliate commissionSponsorshipMarketplace participation

Commercial teams should not be able to purchase a rating or dictate the conclusions of an editorial review.

4.0

User Feedback and Corrections

1User submissions are reviewed before publication and must be displayed as user feedback rather than as BufferApps' own testing.

2Editors may correct spelling or improve formatting without changing the substance of a submission.

3Material factual errors should be reviewed under the Corrections Policy.

4If a company disputes an editorial conclusion, the team should assess any specific factual evidence provided, while retaining the right to publish a fair and clearly identified editorial assessment.