Publication standards
How our research works
How source-checked profiles, community research, first-hand observations, and protocol-tested reviews are kept separate.
Useful now, stronger as evidence grows
We do not require an expensive month-long test before publishing a useful price, platform, policy, or account-control resource. We do require every conclusion to say what kind of evidence supports it.
Three publication levels
Source-checked profile compares current product pages, help documents, terms, app-store records, and other eligible sources. It may explain listed price, features, platforms, audience claims, and policies, but it cannot claim that we personally reproduced them.
Community research dossier adds a documented review of public user and creator reports, and may include a limited first-hand spot-check. We publish the source count, date range, selection method, sponsorship signals, recurring themes, disagreements, and limitations. Convenience samples are not treated as representative polling.
Protocol-tested review requires dated first-hand evaluation, a named reviewer, declared plan and platform, limitations, and integrity-checked artifacts. Longitudinal conclusions require the planned follow-up intervals—not a single session.
Labels used on every conclusion
Publisher states means an official source makes the claim. We observed identifies a direct, scoped check. Users report summarizes a disclosed public research set. Conflicting reports preserves meaningful disagreement. Unknown means the available evidence is insufficient.
Community-source handling
We do not bulk-copy public comments or convert anecdotes into a popularity score. Research logs retain source URLs, dates, product context, and disclosed commercial relationships. Published analysis paraphrases recurring themes, links to originals where permitted, uses quotations sparingly, and avoids exposing ordinary usernames in sensitive adult contexts.
Inclusive-fit taxonomy
Companion gender, trans representation, audience fit, relationship mode, and content explicitness are separate fields. An LGBTQ+ audience label never implies explicit content. A resolved field that does not list an option means only not listed in the reviewed source; it is not proof that the product cannot support that person or use case.
Scores and “best” claims
Source profiles and community dossiers do not receive synthetic product-quality scores. A “best” claim must identify the specific use case and be supported by comparable first-hand evidence. Commission size and merchant approval never alter the result.