Practical value
The page answers a concrete question, explains an action, or helps compare realistic options.
Trust and transparency
Letomix Editorial Policy
How we choose topics, work with sources, use AI, verify claims, and correct published content. The goal is to give readers a clear, honest answer—not simply fill a page with search terms.
Why this policy exists
Good content should help a reader make a decision
A page is useful not because it is long or well optimized, but because the reader understands the options, limitations, and next step.
Verifiability
Important claims should be supported by a source, a recorded observation, or a documented test.
Honest boundaries
We explain what was checked, when it was checked, and where a conclusion may not apply.
SEO helps readers find an article. It should not decide what is true inside it.
Keywords may shape a headline, structure, or wording. They are not a reason to invent a product, exaggerate testing, or repeat the same point simply to increase length.
Editorial workflow
How an idea becomes a published page
A short instruction and a large comparison require different amounts of work, but the underlying sequence should remain clear.
Define the question
Identify the task the page should solve and the answer the reader needs.
Build the source base
Review official documentation, terms, the interface, and relevant alternatives.
Plan the check
Decide what can be tested directly and which conditions need to be recorded.
Prepare the draft
Separate confirmed data, test results, editorial conclusions, and hypotheses.
Review the page
Check links, prices, limitations, logic, and whether the content matches the headline.
Publish and maintain
Record the review date and revisit the page when meaningful changes occur.
Claim status
Facts, tests, and editorial conclusions are treated differently
This avoids creating the impression that every sentence carries the same level of evidence.
Verifiable information
A price, limit, feature, rule, or other detail that can be checked against a reliable source.
Recorded observation
A result obtained under described conditions: version, plan, settings, date, and test inputs.
Editorial assessment
An interpretation of facts and tests, such as who a tool suits and when a limitation becomes important.
Possible explanation
An idea that appears plausible but has not yet been supported by enough evidence.
Reviews and roundups
How comparisons and recommendations are assembled
A roundup should not become an affiliate storefront or a contest based only on feature counts.
The topic determines inclusion
Products are selected for relevance to the task and comparison conditions—not only for brand recognition or affiliate availability.
Criteria are explained
Readers should understand why one option received an advantage and which factors shaped the conclusion.
Important weaknesses remain visible
A review should identify meaningful limitations and situations in which the product is not a good choice.
Sources and verification
Which evidence we prioritize
The best source depends on the claim. An official price and the quality of a real output require different forms of evidence.
Official documentation
Pricing pages, help centers, terms, privacy policies, release notes, and statements from the product developer.
The interface and test scenario
Observed product behavior, results from prepared inputs, and performance under recorded conditions.
Reliable secondary sources
Used when they add meaningful context, but they do not replace official terms or a direct product check.
Important: a lack of confirmation does not automatically prove a claim false. It does mean the claim should not be published as an established fact without a clear qualification.
Use of AI
AI can support the workflow, but it does not replace editorial responsibility
AI systems may speed up individual steps, but published content should still receive human review.
Organizing research
AI may help group questions, build an outline, and identify claims that need further verification.
Draft support
It may suggest wording, reduce repetition, and help adapt a page naturally for another language.
Technical checks
AI may help surface inconsistencies, missing links, or potential errors that are then verified.
No invented experience
Generated text must not turn documentation review into a claimed hands-on test.
No fabricated sources
Nonexistent quotes, links, studies, product features, and test results are not acceptable.
No unchecked publication
Responsibility for facts, sources, conclusions, and final wording remains with the Letomix author.
Updates and corrections
What happens when information changes or an error is found
Digital products frequently change prices, features, and limits. A recent date alone does not guarantee current information.
Corrected after verification
An inaccurate price, name, link, technical statement, or other verifiable error is corrected without waiting for a scheduled review.
The conclusion is reconsidered
When an update affects the recommendation, the page should be reviewed—not merely patched by changing one number.
The date changes for a reason
The review date is updated after a meaningful revision of the content, sources, or testing—not simply to create an appearance of freshness.
English and Russian pages are edited separately
Both versions should preserve the same central conclusion and rely on the same evidence. Headlines, examples, and phrasing are adapted to the language and real search intent rather than translated mechanically word for word.
Commercial transparency
Advertising and affiliate relationships do not buy an editorial conclusion
Some pages may contain advertising or affiliate links. These relationships should be disclosed and do not guarantee inclusion, a high ranking, a positive conclusion, or the removal of meaningful criticism.
Related pages
More about how Letomix works
The editorial policy works alongside the evaluation methodology, author information, and commercial transparency rules.
Project
About Letomix
Why the site exists and what kind of content it publishes.
AuthorMark Leto
Who is responsible for the content and final editorial decisions.
MethodologyHow We Evaluate Tools
Testing conditions, sources, and the boundaries of recommendations.
FeedbackContact
Report an inaccuracy, outdated information, or a problem with a page.
Trust begins with clarity
Readers should be able to see what supports every important conclusion
Review the tool evaluation methodology or contact Letomix if you notice an error or outdated information.