Editorial policy

This page sets out the editorial standards polybuzz-ai.io is held to. It exists so readers can judge our reviews against a written rulebook rather than taking our word for it.

Editorial independence

Reviews on polybuzz-ai.io are written independently of any commercial arrangement with the platforms we cover. The editor decides what gets reviewed, how it gets tested, and what the final assessment says. No platform (including the ones we have affiliate relationships with) sees a review before it's published, edits any part of it, or has approval rights over what we write.

Platforms are welcome to send press briefings, product roadmaps, or product access ahead of a review. We accept all of it. None of it comes with a promise of favourable coverage, and none of it changes how the methodology gets applied.

Affiliate disclosure

polybuzz-ai.io uses affiliate links. This site follows the FTC endorsement guidance on disclosing material connections. When you click a CTA on this site that leads to a platform we have an affiliate relationship with, and you go on to sign up for a paid tier, this site receives a commission. This applies to the PolyBuzz product on the homepage and can apply to specific competitors mentioned in comparison articles.

What affiliate revenue does not do: influence the score a platform receives, change the position it gets in comparison tables, or determine whether a negative point gets included in a review. When we can't find a factually accurate positive thing to say about a platform we happen to have an affiliate link to, we say the negative thing anyway. If that costs conversions, it costs conversions.

Every review that contains affiliate links is marked at the bottom of the page. This disclosure appears here, on the about page, and inline in individual articles where relevant.

Fact-checking process

Before a review is published, every factual claim in it goes through a fact-check pass against three sources: hands-on testing notes taken during the review period, current product documentation from the platform, and independent third-party sources where relevant (release notes, changelogs, public statements). Claims that don't survive this check either get rewritten with the correct fact or removed.

Where a claim depends on live behaviour that could change (response times, memory windows, uptime), the review notes the exact date range it was measured over. We don't state a "current" price without checking against the platform's live pricing page on the day of publication.

Corrections

If a factual claim in a published review is wrong, we correct it. There's no waiting period, no bureaucratic process. The correction goes in as soon as it's verified. Every correction is logged in the corrections section below with the date, the original claim, and the corrected version.

The best way to raise a correction is through the editorial contact channel: Melissa Blake on LinkedIn. Acknowledged corrections receive a response within seven business days.

Corrections log

No corrections have been logged since publication. This log updates whenever a correction is made.

Editorial oversight

Reviews are written and fact-checked by Melissa Blake. The review methodology is documented in full on the methodology page. Structural changes to the methodology or to this editorial policy are documented with a "Last reviewed" date and a summary of what changed.

Contact for editorial issues

For corrections, complaints, or editorial concerns: reach the editor on LinkedIn. For everything else (press, partnerships, general feedback), the same channel works. Contact information is also on the about page.

Last reviewed: July 11, 2026 · by Melissa Blake