Editorial Policy

How we choose what to cover

• The program solves a problem Windows users actually search for.
• It is still maintained, or it is a well-known tool whose status we state clearly.
• It has an identifiable developer and an official distribution page.
• There is something specific to say about it beyond a feature list.

Where facts come from

Licensing, pricing, system requirements and feature claims come from the developer's own documentation, release notes and download pages. Where a project publishes source code or a changelog, we prefer those over marketing pages.

When a figure is not published — an exact installer size, for example — we leave the field out. We would rather show less than fill a page with numbers we cannot stand behind.

What our verdicts mean

A verdict describes who a program suits and where it stops being the right tool. It is an editorial judgement based on the program's documented behaviour, its licensing model and how it compares with the alternatives we cover.

We do not publish numeric review scores generated without testing, and we do not publish user ratings we have not collected.

Independence

• No vendor can pay for inclusion, position or a favourable verdict.
• We do not remove criticism at a developer's request; we correct factual errors.
• Any commercial relationship that could affect a page would be disclosed on that page.

Updates and corrections

Pages carry the date of their last meaningful content change. We do not bump dates cosmetically to look fresh. Corrections are applied to the page itself, and material changes are reflected in the revision date.