Editorial Policy

Everything on this site exists to help a working practitioner solve a real problem. That sets the bar for how it’s written and maintained: be current, be useful, and don’t waste your time.

This page explains how I hold myself to that. It matters more here than on most sites, because AI SEO is a field where platform behavior changes monthly and confident-sounding nonsense travels fast. Accuracy is the floor, not the flourish.

A human writes this — with help

Every page here is ideated, edited, and approved by me before it publishes. I use AI tools the way I’d use a sharp research assistant: surfacing sources, producing a first draft, converting formats. What I don’t do is let them publish. No page goes live on AI output alone, every draft gets my review, and nothing on this site runs on autopilot.

I hold this line for two reasons. The first is simple honesty — if I’m asking you to trust a claim, a human should have checked it. The second is practical: Google’s scaled-content-abuse enforcement never actually punished using AI. It punished publishing velocity without editorial depth. The sites that lost traffic through 2026 were the ones shipping high-volume, low-oversight machine output; the ones that documented real human judgment held up. A followed editorial policy is a durable asset against that pattern, not a values poster.

What I hold every page to

• Current reality beats legacy assumptions. If a claim no longer reflects how platforms actually behave, it gets updated or removed — no matter how good it sounded when I wrote it.
• Primary sources first. When a claim is volatile or high-stakes, official documentation and directly verifiable behavior outrank recycled summaries. You should be able to check my homework.
• Every page has one job. Checklists verify, playbooks execute, templates get pasted, briefings explain, news dates itself. I don’t blur those roles just because a topic is messy — you should never have to guess what kind of page you’re reading.
• Fewer, stronger pages. I’d rather maintain a small set of pages that earn their place than pad the site with thin repetitions and taxonomy wallpaper.
• Warmth without sludge. Professional, clear, and human. No hype, no trend-jargon stuffing, and no sterile corporate drywall either.

Before anything publishes, it has to survive source checking, structural review, and one honest question: would this actually help a competent practitioner who’s trying to solve the problem right now? If the answer is no, it doesn’t ship.

When I’m wrong

I fix it, plainly. I don’t protect outdated wording because it was previously published, and I don’t leave shaky claims in place because they sound impressive.

Beyond fixing what I catch, pages get reviewed on a schedule. Briefings are re-reviewed every 6 months from their reviewed date. Playbooks, templates, and checklists get reviewed whenever something they depend on changes — a platform behavior shift, a spec update, a news item that touches them — with a 12-month backstop either way.

How you can check

Every page carries a reviewed date and a Sources block generated from its own metadata, so the build enforces transparency rather than relying on me to remember it. When a claim really matters, the page cites a primary source directly instead of asking you to trust its tone.

If you spot something stale, unclear, or wrong, I want to know — that’s the policy working as intended.