Editorial Policy
This policy describes the standards applied to Automateed's editorial content. It explains how we choose topics, evaluate sources, review product guidance, make corrections, and maintain accountability across the site.
Our editorial scope
Automateed is focused on helping people plan, write, edit, format, publish, and market books. We also publish product guidance that helps customers use Automateed for those tasks. A page must serve writers, authors, self-publishers, or people creating a book.
We choose topics for their direct relevance to this audience. Software coverage is limited to tools and workflows that can materially help with writing, book creation, publishing, author marketing, or the business of authorship.
Search and audience data may help us identify which existing pages to review first, but traffic never determines whether a page meets our standards. A page is eligible for search visibility only when its purpose, accuracy, originality, and practical value pass the same editorial review regardless of its prior performance.
Editorial responsibility
Stefan Mitrović, founder of Automateed, is the editor accountable for editorial decisions on this site. He oversees topic selection, publication standards, material updates, corrections, and decisions to consolidate or retire editorial resources.
A named editor is responsible for the page; that credit is not a claim that every sentence was personally written or every product personally tested by that person. Automateed uses AI assistance for drafting, editing, code, and source checks. We distinguish those checks from a human editor's review in our review records. Neither AI output nor an editor credit is evidence that a claim is correct.
Review before publication
A new or materially updated editorial page must pass an editorial review that checks:
- the page has a clear audience and a useful purpose within our editorial scope;
- the page preserves the specific intent of its URL instead of shifting to a broader or unrelated topic;
- factual claims, prices, product features, dates, marketplace requirements, and quotations are current and can be verified at claim level;
- the page adds practical value instead of restating or lightly rewriting a source;
- examples, screenshots, results, and experience claims accurately describe work we did;
- the title, byline, update date, disclosures, and links match the visible content; and
- unsupported claims, repetition, and sections written only to target search variants are removed.
New pages need explicit approval before joining our search-eligible collection. Material revisions require a new review of the changed content. Our monitoring flags a changed page whose review no longer matches; it does not automatically remove the page from search. The editor then corrects it, excludes it pending review, or retires it. Publication, prior traffic, and a completed rewrite do not count as editorial approval.
Sources and fact-checking
We prefer primary sources such as official product documentation, pricing pages, marketplace or publishing-platform rules, original research, and public records. When a primary source is unavailable, we compare credible secondary sources and make that limitation clear.
- Date-sensitive facts are checked against the current primary source near the publication or update date and rechecked when the underlying rule or product changes.
- Each material external or date-sensitive claim must name or link to the public primary source that supports that specific claim rather than relying on a general source list.
- Product instructions are checked against the relevant interface and implementation. A test record names the action and result actually checked. A source or code review is not described as an end-to-end customer test.
- Quotes must be traceable to the original speaker and source.
- If we cannot verify a claim, we qualify it clearly or remove it.
Experience claims and tool coverage
We only say that we tested, used, or experienced a product when that actually happened. First-hand claims must be supported by review notes, dated screenshots, an account or test record, or another form of evidence that the editor can inspect. We do not invent tests, results, quotations, customer experiences, or hands-on verdicts, and we remove undocumented first-person claims during review.
If we have not tested a relevant writing or publishing tool, we may publish a clearly described source-based overview only when it offers useful analysis beyond the vendor's own description. Otherwise, we do not publish the page. Tool coverage unrelated to writing, book creation, or publishing is not part of our editorial program.
Originality and attribution
We do not scrape or republish another site's work as our own. Sources may be quoted briefly when attribution helps the reader, but the purpose of an Automateed page must be original explanation, analysis, examples, or instructions. Every page should give readers useful context or practical guidance they would not get from a list of source facts alone.
Original tables, calculators, diagrams, screenshots, and videos are included only when they make the reader's task easier or clarify a decision that prose alone would not. Their inputs, labels, calculations, examples, and visible product states must be checked before publication. Decorative or unverified assets do not count as editorial value.
Commercial and affiliate relationships
A commercial, affiliate, or referral relationship does not permit unsupported claims or change our review standard. A paid placement is not an independent recommendation of the linked service.
Corrections, updates, and removals
To report a possible error, email stefan@automateed.com with the page URL, the claim in question, and any supporting source. The accountable editor will inspect the page and source. We then take the action that best serves readers: correct the claim, add missing context, update the page, consolidate it with a stronger resource, or remove it.
A page receives a new modified date only when its visible body has changed materially; routine checks, metadata-only edits, or a changed review status do not earn a new date. Editorial pages are rechecked for source accuracy, relevance, and usefulness, including when a product, price, marketplace rule, or publishing requirement changes. When a resource no longer meets those standards, we correct it, consolidate it with a more complete resource, exclude it pending review, or retire it. We do not redirect a retired page to an unrelated destination.
Last updated: