How we write,
source, and correct.

Sourcing rules

Every quantitative claim ties back to a primary source. Mechanics (what a search engine does or how a feature works) cite Google Search Central, the Google AI optimization guide at developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide, official platform documentation, or the original research paper. Market figures cite the original publisher with the access date. Internal data is labeled as our panel, with sample size and time window stated inline.

We prefer primary sources over commentary. When a finding is contested, we say so in the body and link the dissenting source, not just the one we agree with.

Fact-checking

Every guide is reviewed by a second member of the editorial team before publishing. The reviewer pulls a 10% sample of cited sources, opens each link, and confirms the claim matches the source. Claims that cannot be re-verified are removed or reframed. Reviewer name appears in the byline and in the Article schema as reviewedBy.

Dates and freshness

Every guide shows datePublished and dateModified in both the visible byline and in JSON-LD. We re-review every pillar guide on a 90-day cadence and bump dateModified only when content changes materially. Cosmetic edits do not bump the date. When a guide is no longer accurate we either rewrite it or add a clearly labeled correction at the top.

AI disclosure

We use large language models as research assistants and drafting tools. No guide is published as model output. Every page is structured, written, fact-checked and signed off by a named human editor. Where a model surfaces a claim, the editor verifies the primary source before it stays in. This page is reviewed and updated when our process changes.

Bylines and reviewer credit

Every guide carries a named author and a named reviewer. Both are real people on the RankTracker team. Author schema is emitted as JSON-LD Person with sameAs links to verifiable profiles. Where a guest contributor writes a piece, the byline says so and the contributor is named on this page.

Conflicts of interest

Our comparison pages name competitors directly. We use each product before publishing and disclose when a vendor is a customer, investor, or paid partner. If a guide promotes our own product, the recommendation is stated as a recommendation, not as neutral analysis.

Corrections process

If you spot an error, email editorial at ranktracker.ca. We respond within two business days. Confirmed errors trigger one of three actions: a silent typo fix, an inline correction stamped with the date, or a top-of-page correction block when the change affects a load-bearing claim. We keep a public log of corrections on each guide at the bottom of the page when corrections have been issued.

E-E-A-T alignment

This policy is written against Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines (the E-E-A-T section) and the Helpful Content System guidance. Experience shows up as first-party panel data and dated observations. Expertise shows up as named bylines and reviewer credit. Authoritativeness shows up as Organization sameAs and primary sourcing. Trust shows up as visible dates, an open corrections process, and an explicit AI disclosure.