Editorial Guidelines

Effective date: 29 September 2026

These are the rules we write to. They are public so that you can hold us to them, and so that you can judge any article on this site against a stated standard rather than an implied one.

1. Why this page exists

Personal finance content has a trust problem, and deservedly so. The category is full of material written to sell something — a course, a broker account, a subscription — dressed as education. Much of it is anonymous. Some of it is generated at volume with no one accountable for whether it is true.

We cannot fix that category. We can state precisely what we do, so you can decide whether to trust a given article here. If we ever fail to meet these standards, this page is the thing to quote back at us.

2. Originality

Every article is written for this site. We do not:

• Copy, rewrite, spin or paraphrase content from other publishers
• Publish content generated in bulk without human authorship, review and accountability
• Translate and republish material from another language or another site
• Accept contributed or guest articles
• Publish press releases, provider-supplied copy or sponsored content
• Reproduce tables, calculations or methodology from another source without attribution

Where we quote a figure from a named source, we link to it. Where a judgement is ours, we say so. Where we disagree with conventional advice — and we often do — we explain the reasoning rather than just asserting a contrary position.

Plagiarism in this category is more common than readers assume and is often invisible, because a rewritten article with the same structure and the same conclusions is functionally copied. We check our own work against existing coverage of the same topic before publishing, specifically to make sure we are adding something rather than restating it.

3. Sourcing

Our hierarchy of evidence, in order:

Every article carries a sources section listing the material behind its factual claims. We prefer tier 1 and 2 wherever they exist, and we link directly rather than citing a secondary summary.

What we do not use as a source: anonymous forum posts, unattributed aggregator lists, content farms, other personal finance blogs restating the same unsourced claim, or a figure we cannot trace to an origin. A great deal of personal finance "fact" circulating online traces back to one blog post from a decade ago that was never sourced in the first place. We try not to add to that.

Where sources conflict, we say so and explain which we relied on and why.

4. Accuracy and currency

Financial information decays quickly. Our commitments:

• Every article shows a published date and a last-updated date
• Time-sensitive figures — rates, limits, thresholds, eligibility rules — are flagged as such in the text rather than presented as permanent
• Guides are reviewed at least annually, and immediately when the underlying facts change materially
• Where a figure is illustrative rather than current, the article says so
• Calculations are shown, not just their results, so you can check the arithmetic and substitute your own numbers

We do not claim our content is always current. We claim that you can tell how old it is, and that we correct it when we know it is wrong.

5. Corrections

We make mistakes and we correct them visibly.

Process:

1. A correction request arrives, or we identify an error ourselves
2. We verify it against primary sources — usually within three working days
3. If we are wrong, we fix the text and add a dated correction notice at the top of the article stating what changed and what the correct information is
4. We reply to whoever reported it, including when we conclude we were right

We do not quietly edit articles and leave no record. Silent correction destroys the ability to know whether a source has changed its mind or simply got something wrong, and in financial content that difference matters.

If an error is serious enough that acting on it could have caused financial harm, we say so explicitly in the correction notice rather than minimising it.

6. Authorship and attribution

Every article names its author. Each author has a published biography stating their actual background and qualifications, and a link to it appears on every article they write.

Our rule on credentials: we state what is true and nothing more. If an author has a professional qualification, we name it and it can be verified. If an author's expertise comes from lived experience rather than a credential, we say that instead. We do not invent, inflate, imply or borrow credentials.

This is not merely an ethical preference. Google's publisher policies treat misrepresentation of the author or publisher as a serious violation — one that can result in account termination rather than a declined application. A fabricated expert profile is a worse outcome than an honest non-expert one, both for the site and for the reader.

Where an article has been reviewed by someone with a relevant qualification, that reviewer is named with their credential and the review date.

7. Separation of editorial and commercial

This is the most important section on the page.

• Commercial partners never see, review, approve or edit content before publication
• No provider can request a change, request removal, or request that a topic be avoided
• Affiliate relationships are established after editorial conclusions are reached, never before
• Ranking and inclusion decisions are made on stated criteria applied identically to paying and non-paying providers
• Products we earn nothing from are recommended where they are the best answer
• Display advertisers have no placement control and no content input
• We do not accept payment for coverage, for favourable treatment, or for silence

Full mechanics are in our Affiliate Disclosure.

Where a commercial relationship could reasonably be perceived as affecting a conclusion, we disclose the relationship on the specific page, not only in a global policy.

8. What we will not publish

Regardless of commercial opportunity, traffic potential or reader demand:

• Get-rich-quick schemes, "systems", or anything promising guaranteed returns
• Trading signals, copy-trading services, or short-term market predictions
• Content targeting people in financial distress with high-cost credit
• Unregulated investment products, crypto yield schemes, or anything we cannot verify is properly licensed
• Health claims, medical advice, or treatment recommendations
• Content designed to exploit a fear — of missing out, of inflation, of losing everything
• Anything that requires the reader to pay us or a partner before they can act on the advice
• Listicles assembled to fill a category with no research behind them

Some of these would generate substantial traffic and revenue. They would also harm readers, and a site that harms its readers stops being worth reading.

9. Tone and framing

Style is an editorial standard, not a preference, because it affects whether readers can act on what they read.

We do:

• Show the arithmetic. A worked example beats an assertion every time
• State conditions. "This works if X, and fails if Y" is more useful than "this works"
• Give ranges rather than false precision. Nobody knows what markets will do next year
• Say when conventional advice is wrong, and explain why
• Name the trade-off in every recommendation. There is no free option in finance
• Write for a reader who is intelligent and uninformed about this specific topic
• Use plain language. Jargon is explained on first use or not used

We do not:

• Use urgency, scarcity or fear as a motivator
• Promise outcomes
• Present opinion as data, or data without its source
• Write to hit a word count
• Use "passive income", "financial freedom", "wealth hack" or similar as though they mean anything
• Shame readers for their current situation. Almost nobody's finances are the result of a single bad decision, and most are the result of circumstances they did not choose

10. Conflicts of interest

Where a writer holds a position in a provider, product or asset discussed in an article, that position is disclosed in the article. Where the conflict is material — the writer owns a meaningful stake, is employed by the provider, or would financially benefit from a particular conclusion — the writer does not write the article.

We do not currently accept free products, travel, hospitality or event access in connection with coverage. If that changes, this section will be updated before it happens rather than after.

11. Complaints and accountability

If you believe an article breaches these guidelines:

1. Contact us via the contact page and identify the article and the guideline you believe is breached
2. We respond within three working days
3. If you are right, we correct the article and publish a dated notice
4. If we disagree, we explain why in writing
5. If you are still dissatisfied, write to our postal address marked "Formal editorial complaint" and it will be reviewed by someone other than the author

We keep a record of complaints and outcomes. We would rather hear a complaint and be told we are wrong than have a reader quietly stop trusting us.

12. Advertising complaints

If you see an advert on this site that appears misleading, fraudulent, or inappropriate for the content, tell us. We can block specific advertisers, categories and creative, and we do.

We cannot review every advert that serves — the volume is far beyond what a small publisher can inspect — but we can act quickly on a specific report, and reader reports are the main way inappropriate adverts get caught.

13. Changes to these guidelines

We update this page when our practices change. The effective date at the top always reflects the current version, and any change that weakens a reader protection will be announced prominently rather than made quietly.

14. Contact

Questions, corrections, complaints: see our Contact page.