Home / Editorial Rigor
Editorial Rigor
The cookbook is opinionated on purpose: founders don't need another directory—they need a point of view and a way to compare tradeoffs. Here's what we try to hold ourselves to.
Independence (within reason)
We score and write about tools we use, test, or study in depth. Sponsorships, affiliate links, or paid placements would be called out clearly if we ever use them. Today, the bias is simpler: we like things that respect a founder's time and budget.
Corrections
Stacks change. If we get a fact wrong or a product materially updates, we fix the write-up and the scores when it matters—no stealth edits for PR optics.
The committee jokes
Yes, the team page is tongue-in-cheek. The commitment here isn't: we still aim for honest curation, clear reasoning, and links so you can decide for yourself.
Our iron-clad guarantees
99% chance it's written by a human
We're not claiming perfection—or that spell-check and a stray autocomplete never barged in—but the words you read were put there by a person. Fingers on keys, opinions in skulls, the whole inefficient deal. No ghost-written buzzword soup pretending to be “thought leadership.”
101% guarantee
There will be typos. Typos happen. We round up to 101% because statistics are more fun when they don't quite close—and because you deserve honest odds on a missing letter somewhere. If one bothers you, imagine it was on purpose to prove we're not bots. (It wasn't. But you can imagine.)
Questions? Reach out via the same channels linked in the site footer—we read them when we're not in mandatory morale sync with the Estebans.