Editorial Policy & Content Standards

Who Writes and Reviews Our Content

Every article on this site is written by a named person and reviewed by a second before it goes live. We don't publish anonymously, and we don't publish anything nobody is willing to put their name to.

How We Research an Article

The same sequence runs behind every guide we publish:

• We start with a real question people are asking, not a keyword we'd like to rank for.
• We read what already ranks, and specifically look for what those articles leave out.
• We check facts, fees and rules at their original source, not at a blog that quoted one.
• We write from practical experience where we have it, and say plainly when we don't.
• A second person reads the draft against its sources before it is published.

If a topic falls outside what we can research properly, we don't publish on it. An empty slot on the site costs us nothing. A guide that sends someone in the wrong direction costs them a great deal.

Our Sourcing Standards

Where a claim depends on something external — a platform's fees, a tax rule, a government requirement — we link to the primary source and name it in the text so you can check it yourself.

• Preferred: official documentation, government portals, company pricing pages and regulatory text.
• Acceptable with attribution: established industry publications and named specialist practitioners.
• Never used as a sole source: forums, social posts, AI output, or blogs recycling other blogs.

When credible sources disagree, we say so in the article rather than picking whichever number suits the point we are making.

Accuracy, Claims and Numbers

Rates, fees and platform policies change often. Any figure we publish is accurate as at the date shown on the article, and we tell readers to verify it at source before acting on it.

We do not publish guaranteed income figures, and we do not present a best-case outcome as a typical one. Where we describe what something might earn or cost, we state what that estimate rests on.

Nothing on this site is professional financial, legal, tax or medical advice. For decisions with real consequences, consult a qualified professional who knows your circumstances.

How We Use AI Tools

We use AI tools the way we use a spellchecker or a search engine: to assist with research, structure and editing. They support the process, they do not replace it.

• No article is published straight from an AI tool.
• Every factual claim is verified by a person against a real source.
• A named human author is accountable for everything published here.
• Experience, opinions and recommendations are our own.

Updates and Revisions

Guides are living documents. We revisit published articles when platform fees change, when a rule or regulation is updated, when a recommended tool changes materially, or when a reader tells us something has moved on.

Each article displays the date it was last updated. A substantive revision refreshes that date. Fixing a typo does not, because that would suggest the content changed when it has not.

Advertising, Affiliates and Independence

Reporting an Error

Most publishers treat a reader who finds a mistake as a nuisance. We treat them as the most useful person in the room. Someone who reads closely enough to catch what we missed has demonstrated exactly the quality we look for in a writer.

Email support@digitalfreemarketing.in with the subject line Correction, and include:

• The link to the article.
• The sentence or section you believe is wrong.
• What you believe the correct position is.
• A source, if you have one. This speeds everything up considerably.

You do not need to be an expert, and you do not need to be certain. A reader saying "this doesn't match what the official page says" is a perfectly good report.

How a report is verified

1. We acknowledge your report

   Within three working days, so you know it reached a person rather than an inbox.

2. We check it against the source

   Both authors review the claim against primary sources — not against what we originally believed, and not against what other sites say.

3. We tell you the outcome either way

   If the report is accepted, we say so. If we disagree, we explain why rather than going quiet. A report we decline is still a report we read properly.

4. We correct the article and ask about credit

   The article is updated, its revision date refreshed, and we ask how you would like to be credited — including whether you would prefer not to be.

Correction Credit and Your Choice

An accepted correction adds a permanent line to the foot of the article. It records that a correction was made, the date it was made, and who identified it.

Note what that line does not do. It does not reproduce the original wording or spell out what was wrong, because the purpose of the notice is to be honest that the article changed, not to put a contributor in the position of having publicly embarrassed anyone. Readers are told plainly that a correction happened and when. Anyone who wants the detail can ask, and we will tell them.

Your credit, your choice

We never publish a name without asking first, and there is no wrong answer here.

You may change your mind later in either direction. Ask us to add your name and we will add it; ask us to remove it and we will remove it, without needing a reason.

What we do and don't credit

Where two people report the same error, credit goes to whoever reported it first, by the timestamp on the email.

The Author Candidates Pathway

Anyone whose correction is accepted becomes eligible for our Author Candidates list — the pool we draw from when we are looking for a new contributor to write for this site.

Eligibility is earned one way only, and it is the same way for everybody:

• You identified something genuinely wrong in a published article.
• We verified it against a primary source and accepted it.

We accept no applications for this list. Portfolios, pitches and cold emails asking to be added will be politely declined. The list exists precisely because attention to detail is easier to demonstrate than to claim, and one verified correction demonstrates it better than any covering letter.

Terms of Recognition

Plain terms, so nothing here is ambiguous later:

• Credit is a recognition, not a payment. No fee or compensation is offered or implied.
• Credit does not confer authorship, copyright, ownership or editorial control over the article.
• We publish only the name you approve, and no other personal details.
• Whether a report is accepted is an editorial judgement, made in good faith, and final.
• Placement on the Author Candidates list is an invitation to be approached, not an offer of work.
• You may withdraw your credit or your listing at any time by emailing us.