Editorial and tool policy
These are the rules this site holds itself to. They are written down because rules that live in someone's head get bent quietly, and because a reader deciding whether to trust a domain they have never heard of deserves to know what the standards actually are.
Every page has to earn its place
A tool page here has to contain something the best existing tools for that job do not. A worked example, a constraint explained, a failure mode named, or a feature we checked for and did not find in them. If we cannot name that thing, the page does not publish.
This is enforced in the build. Every page is registered with a one-line statement of what makes it different, and the build fails if that line is empty. It is a low bar deliberately, because the point is to make the question unavoidable rather than to require brilliance.
Some tools here will not be the best on the market and we say so on the page. The two-color contrast checker is a good example: Adobe and WebAIM have excellent ones, ours is fine, and the cluster would be incomplete without it. Pretending otherwise would cost more trust than the honesty costs traffic.
We use the competitors before building
Before a tool gets built, we spend real time using the two best existing versions of it. Not reading comparison articles about them, using them. The irritations that make a better tool obvious do not show up in a feature table.
Ratings
We do not display a star rating or a review count for our own tools, and we do not put one in the page's structured data.
Worth explaining, because it is a real temptation. Search engines will show a rating next to a result if the page declares one, which makes the listing more attractive. Declaring a rating we have not genuinely received would be fabricating a signal for search engines and for readers. If real ratings ever exist, they will appear. Until then the field stays empty and the listing stays plainer.
Comparison pages
Where this site publishes a round-up of alternatives, and it will, the rules are strict:
- we appear in the list ranked on merit, never first by default;
- every competitor's genuine strengths get stated, including where they beat us;
- where a competitor is simply the better choice for a given job, the page says which job.
A comparison page earns links and rankings precisely because it is honest, and becomes worthless the moment it reads as an advertisement for us. That is not principle over profit, the two point the same way here.
Corrections
When a tool gives a wrong answer or a page states something false, it gets fixed and the fix goes in the changelog with the date and a note on what was wrong. Corrections are not made silently.
Where we got something wrong publicly and the mistake is instructive, we say so on the page rather than tidying it away. The contrast grid describes a real failure in this site's own color palette, with the real number, because it is exactly the mistake that tool exists to catch.
Dates
The published date on a page is when it went live. The updated date only moves when something material changed: a corrected calculation, a rewritten section, a new feature. It does not move for a typo fix and it never moves to look fresh. A page here with a two-year-old update date has not been neglected, it has been correct for two years.
Advertising and independence
The site plans to run advertising. No advertiser gets a say in what gets built, what a comparison page concludes, or what a tool reports. There is no sponsored content and no affiliate link anywhere on the site. If either ever appears it will be labeled on the page it appears on, not only in a policy nobody reads.
Ads never sit above a tool, never appear in classroom projection modes, and always have a fixed reserved space so the page does not move under you.
How tools get written
Software and prose here are both drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by a person before publishing, which is worth stating plainly rather than leaving to be guessed. What that does not change is accountability: a named person maintains every page, the calculations are documented on how we build tools, and a wrong answer is our mistake regardless of what typed it. Who that person is, and why the site is run by one rather than an unnamed editorial team, is on the about page. If a policy here is not being followed, that is worth reporting in the same way a wrong number is.
Scaled content
Some future tools will have many similar pages, such as one page per ingredient for a cooking converter. Those only publish where each page has something specific to say beyond a swapped number, and they roll out in small batches so quality can be checked against reality rather than assumed. A page that is only a template with a number in it does not ship.
Last updated . Only changed when something material changed, which is why some of these dates are old.