Editorial Policy

This page sets out the standards for what gets published on aeoandseo.com: how topics are chosen, where the information comes from, how mistakes get fixed, and how affiliate revenue does — and does not — affect what you read.

If an article on this site doesn't live up to what's written here, I want to know. Tell me through the Contact page.

What this site covers

aeoandseo.com is about Answer Engine Optimization and SEO, and the tools people use to do both. The scope:

  • AEO — structuring content so answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews can use it as a source.
  • SEO — on-page, technical, off-page, local, and e-commerce.
  • Reviews — SEO tools, SaaS, AI writing tools, hosting, and email marketing platforms.
  • Deals — including lifetime deals, which come with risks a normal subscription doesn't have.

The list is deliberately narrow. A topic that sits outside it is better left to someone who knows it than covered thinly here to fill a gap in a content calendar.

Testing comes first

One rule runs through this site: a tool doesn't get recommended here until it has been used on real work.

A guide published here has to come out of real work on a real site — including the attempts that didn't work. Knowing what fails saves you as much time and money as knowing what works, so the failures stay in rather than getting tidied out.

Where a claim comes from someone else's testing, it gets attributed and linked, and it's presented as their finding. For how tools specifically get put through their paces, see How I Test and Score Tools.

Where information comes from

Primary sources come first. What a company documents about its own product — Google Search Central, a tool's own docs and changelog — beats what a blog says about it. Named third-party research gets cited and linked so you can check it yourself.

When something is a vendor's marketing claim rather than a tested result, it's labelled as a vendor claim. Secondary sources get named and linked, not quietly reworded into an article as though the reporting were original.

Affiliate revenue does not decide recommendations

Some links on this site are affiliate links. That's set out in full in the Affiliate Disclosure. What matters here is what that money doesn't buy:

  • Commission rate is never a ranking factor. A tool doesn't move up because it pays more, and doesn't get left out because it pays nothing or has no programme at all.
  • If a free tool does the job, the article has to say so — even when the paid alternative would earn a commission.
  • Flaws stay in the review. If a product this site earns from has a real problem, the problem belongs in the write-up.
  • No review just to place a link. A product that can't honestly be recommended doesn't get a review here purely to carry an affiliate link.
  • A vendor cannot buy a better verdict, and no vendor gets a negative finding removed on request. Corrections happen because something is factually wrong, not because someone is unhappy about it.

What you won't find here

  • Guarantees or predictions about rankings, traffic, visibility in AI answers, or income. Nobody controls those, and anyone who promises them is selling something. See the Disclaimer.
  • Hype, or "overnight results" framing.
  • Invented numbers, borrowed screenshots passed off as original, or results that can't be backed up.
  • Reviews of products that haven't been used for real work.

Updates and corrections

Search and answer engines change constantly, which means guidance goes stale faster here than in most niches. An article gets revisited when:

  • a platform changes how it works, or Google ships an update that changes the advice;
  • a tool changes its pricing, its plans, or its features;
  • a deal's terms change or the deal ends;
  • or a reader points out something wrong.

Substantive corrections will be marked on the page rather than quietly swapped out, so you can see what changed. If advice has been overtaken by events and can't be fixed, the article will say so rather than pretend it's still current.

Found an error? Send it through the Contact page with the URL and what's wrong. A specific correction — ideally with a source — is the easiest kind to act on. Reader corrections are welcome.

Related pages