Editorial & Corrections Policy
This policy explains how csnr.in/ decides what to publish, how we describe our evidence and how readers can ask us to correct a material error.
1. Reader value comes before a keyword target
A page should help a reader make a decision, understand a risk, complete a task or verify an important claim. We do not consider word count by itself a measure of quality. Repeating generic advice, padding an article with definitions or rewriting a manufacturer page without adding analysis does not meet our standard.
2. Evidence should match the claim
- Government, banking and regulation: prefer official agencies, regulators and primary documents.
- Product specifications: prefer the manufacturer or official support documentation.
- Security performance: use recognised independent labs, standards bodies or documented reproducible testing where available.
- Prices and availability: treat as time-sensitive snapshots, not permanent facts.
- Editorial judgement: explain the criteria used rather than presenting an opinion as a measured fact.
3. We distinguish research from hands-on testing
“Compared,” “researched” and “reviewed” do not automatically mean a product was physically tested by CSNR. A genuine hands-on claim should be supported by a clear test period, device or software version, test conditions and limitations. If we rely on another publication’s laboratory or long-term test, we credit that work rather than re-labelling it as our own test.
4. Security articles do not promise certainty
Security controls reduce risk; they do not create an “unhackable” device or account. Scam-recovery articles do not promise that money will be recovered. We prefer concrete response steps—such as contacting the bank, using official reporting channels, preserving evidence and changing compromised credentials—over dramatic claims.
5. Finance content is regulator-first
For payments, investing, tax and fintech topics, we check the relevant regulator or official portal where possible. Finance pages should separate an explanation of rules from editorial comparisons of apps or services. They should also identify important limitations, such as fees, tax treatment, market risk and eligibility.
6. Updates
Fast-changing pages should be reviewed when a major product generation changes, an official rule changes, a linked source is no longer valid or a material reader correction is received. We may remove or unpublish a page when updating it would require speculation or when the topic no longer fits the site.
7. Corrections
Send corrections through Contact & Corrections. Include the page URL, the disputed claim and a supporting source where possible. Material factual errors are corrected in the page. Minor spelling or formatting changes may be made without a correction note.
8. Conflicts, advertising and affiliate links
Advertising and affiliate relationships are commercial arrangements, not evidence that a product is good. Sponsored or paid material should be disclosed. We do not accept payment in exchange for presenting a product as independently tested or for hiding a material drawback.
9. AI and editorial tools
Writing, research or editing tools may assist with drafting, organisation or language, but a tool output is not treated as a source. Factual claims should be checked against appropriate sources, and fabricated experiences, test results, quotes or credentials are not acceptable.