Editorial standards

Our credibility depends on readers trusting that what we publish is accurate, independent and clearly sourced. These are the standards we hold ourselves to.

Accuracy and evidence

We separate facts from opinion. Funding figures, dates and quotes come from the campaign page, creator updates or other primary sources, and we link to them where possible. Claims about delays, quality problems or misconduct must be supported by evidence, and we avoid presenting allegations as established fact.

Independence

Coverage decisions are made by our editors alone. We do not accept payment, free products in exchange for positive coverage, or requests to change a risk rating. If a review unit is provided by a creator, we say so in the article and it does not affect our conclusions.

Sourcing and attribution

Use of AI

We use AI tools to help translate articles, summarise long discussions and produce first-pass campaign risk analyses. AI-generated risk analyses are labelled as such and explained on our Methodology page. We remain responsible for everything we publish and correct errors promptly.

Fairness to creators

Most crowdfunding creators are working hard to deliver. When we raise concerns about a campaign, we focus on verifiable signals and give creators the opportunity to respond. Creators can send corrections or context at any time.

Corrections policy

When we get something wrong, we fix it promptly and, for material errors, note the correction on the page. Send corrections to [email protected] with a link to the page and the evidence.