Editorial Policy · GoomView Hub

Independence from tools

No tool, vendor, or third party has any influence over our rankings, scores, or written content. Affiliate relationships do not affect placement - see our affiliate disclosure for the full structural firewall. Editors are forbidden from accepting personal compensation, gifts, or favors from any tool we cover.

Fact-checking process

Every review and guide is fact-checked by a second editor before publication. Quantitative claims (load times, feature support, pricing) are verified within 7 days of publication. We use the following checklist:

All scores reproducible from raw test data in our internal benchmark log.
All pricing claims sourced from the tool's live pricing page (with screenshot archived).
All legal claims reviewed by Priya Patel, our JD-credentialed legal contributor.
All privacy claims reviewed by Sarah Chen, our CIPP/E-certified senior reviewer.

Correction policy

When we get something wrong, here's what happens:

Minor corrections (typos, broken links, formatting): fixed within 24 hours, no notice.
Substantive corrections (factual error, outdated score, misattributed feature): fixed and noted at the bottom of the article with a "Corrected on [date]" entry describing what was changed.
Major corrections (review-wide rewrite, score change of more than 0.5): a dedicated note added to the top of the article in a callout box.

Report any inaccuracy to [email protected] and we will respond within 48 hours on weekdays.

Anonymous source policy

We rarely use anonymous sources because most of our coverage is testable directly. When we do - typically when reporting on a tool operator's misconduct - we require the source's identity be verified by at least two editors, their information be corroborated by a second independent source, and the rationale for anonymity be documented in our editorial log.

Source diversity

Whenever we cite an external source, we prioritize primary sources (official documentation, court records, statutory text, our own benchmark data) over secondary sources. When secondary sources are required, we favor outlets with their own editorial standards over content farms.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

Any editor with a prior employment, consulting, or financial relationship to a tool we cover must disclose it on the review page.
Editors recuse themselves from reviewing tools where their conflict cannot be cleanly disclosed.
We do not accept stock, equity, or revenue-share deals from any tool - only standard affiliate commission on click-throughs.

No AI-generated content

Every word published on GoomView Hub is written by a named human editor. We do not publish AI-generated text in our reviews, guides, or comparisons. We may use AI internally for transcription, formatting, or research lookups - but the final copy is human-written and human-edited.

Expert review for legal and privacy content

Articles touching on legality (e.g., "is it legal to view a private profile") are reviewed by Priya Patel (JD) before publication. Articles touching on data privacy (e.g., GDPR compliance of a tool) are reviewed by Sarah Chen (CIPP/E). Their initials appear in the byline as the reviewing expert.

User contributions

Reader-submitted reviews and comments are moderated for spam, abuse, and obvious astroturfing. We do not edit reader reviews for content - they appear as written or not at all.

Questions?

Email [email protected] or visit our contact page.

The rules we hold ourselves to.