Digital Pulse Brief / Editorial standards
Editorial Policy.
Trust starts here.
A useful technology guide should tell you what to try, why it matters and where the advice comes from. This page explains the standards we work toward, how we handle mistakes and how you can challenge something we publish.
Read our standards ↓What we owe our readers.
Our editorial policy is simple: useful instructions need evidence. We aim to explain everyday technology clearly, check important claims and tell readers when a suggested fix is uncertain or has not been tested firsthand.
Digital Pulse Brief covers phone and tablet problems, Windows and Mac issues, apps and software, plus selected device comparisons and buying guides. An article should help you make sense of a real problem—not just repeat what is already everywhere online.
We welcome corrections. Technology changes quickly, and an instruction that was right for one version of an app may be wrong for the next.
Six standards behind our work.
These are the checks that should shape what we publish, from the first outline to the final update.
Accuracy before speed
We do not want to be first at the cost of being wrong. Specific settings, steps and claims should be checked against dependable evidence.
Original value
A worthwhile guide should explain the problem, what to try and what to watch out for—not just rephrase a manufacturer’s help page or another publisher’s article.
Traceable sources
When a fact depends on an outside source, we aim to identify that source and link to original documentation where possible.
Honest about limits
We distinguish a confirmed fix from a possible workaround. If a step is untested or works only on certain versions, we should say so.
Readable for everyone
Short explanations, helpful headings, clear screenshots and accessible image descriptions should make guidance easier to follow.
Accountability
If we discover a significant mistake, we aim to correct the affected material and explain meaningful changes when readers need context.
Research first.
Then the instructions.
Good troubleshooting is specific. The correct advice may depend on the device model, operating system, app version, region or permissions. We aim to make those differences visible rather than bury them in small print.
Official resources such as Apple Support, Microsoft Support and Android Help are useful starting points, alongside relevant first-hand checks when available.
Define the actual problem
We identify the symptom, affected device or software, and the result a reader is trying to achieve. A vague question rarely leads to a dependable answer.
Check the source and version
We prioritize first-party documentation and trustworthy technical references, checking publication dates, version differences and the context of a claim.
Test where possible; label what isn’t tested
Hands-on checks and original screenshots should be identified as such. If advice is based on documentation or research instead of direct testing, the article should not present it as a personal test.
Write safe, ordered steps
We favor reversible checks first, flag steps that might erase data or change security settings, and explain when official support is the safer choice.
Revisit guidance as products change
Reader reports, changed interface labels and product updates can prompt a review. A publication date alone does not prove that an old fix still works.
What you see should be real.
Images, screenshots and product claims should help you understand the subject—not create a misleading impression.
Screenshots, images and credits
When we use an original screenshot or a first-hand comparison, we aim to make its context clear. Third-party visuals should be appropriately licensed or otherwise used lawfully, and credited where needed. Illustrative images must not be passed off as evidence of a test.
We do not want a decorative image to look like an authentic product screenshot or a result we personally achieved.
Comparisons and buying advice
Device comparisons should consider practical differences such as compatibility, long-term software support, features and trade-offs. A recommendation should explain whom the product suits and why, not just call it the best.
If a product was not personally tested, we should distinguish research-based judgments from a hands-on review.
Our words are not for sale.
Editorial decisions should be made for readers, not to satisfy an advertiser, brand or search algorithm. Financial arrangements must not determine whether a claim is accurate.
Advertisements should remain visibly separate from editorial material. We do not ask readers to click ads or describe advertising as editorial advice.
If we publish sponsored content, we will identify the commercial relationship clearly rather than presenting paid placement as an independent review.
If a guide contains affiliate links or a product supplied for review, readers should be told. A free product or payment cannot turn a weak recommendation into a good one. Read our Advertising & Affiliate Disclosure and How We Evaluate Products for more detail.
AI can help organize research or prepare an outline, but it cannot prove that a setting exists or a fix actually works. We aim to check factual steps against reliable sources and distinguish direct testing from research. Where substantial AI assistance matters to how readers judge an article, it should be made clear.
Potential relationships that could affect the reader’s assessment of coverage should be disclosed or avoided.
What happens if we get something wrong?
Even carefully researched guidance can become outdated. If you spot an error, tell us which page is affected and what appears incorrect. Links to the relevant manufacturer’s documentation are especially helpful.
We aim to check reports against the available evidence and correct verified errors. Minor typos may not need an announcement, but substantive changes should be clear. Our Corrections & Updates Policy explains how readers can request a review.
What makes a useful correction?
- The link to the article or guide
- The exact sentence, setting or step in question
- The device or software version, if relevant
- A source or screenshot showing what has changed, if available
We cannot promise a reply to every message or an immediate fix, but reports help us prioritize what needs a closer look.
See something we should revisit?
Use this form to flag a factual error, outdated instructions, missing attribution or a concern about how an article was presented. You can also suggest a source we should consider.
Please don’t send passwords, verification codes, payment details or other sensitive information. The form is for editorial correspondence, not live technical support. Read our Privacy Policy for information about submitted details.
Prefer email? contact@digitalpulsebrief.com. For general enquiries, see our Contact Us page.