Editorial Standards
These standards explain how we separate facts from opinion, editorial work from commercial arrangements, and updates from stale copy.
Last updated: April 26, 2026
Evidence before copy
We should be able to defend public claims about coverage, pricing, ranking, or provider behaviour with an observable source.
Clear labelling
Editorial content, comparison outputs, partner placements, and sponsored content should not blur together.
Corrections matter
When time-sensitive information changes or an error is reported, the fix should be visible in the published page, not only in internal notes.
1. What counts as editorial content
Editorial content includes provider explainers, route guides, comparison advice, news summaries, market reports, and methodology documents. The purpose of editorial work is to help users understand a decision or a market, not to sell a listing.
Sponsored placements, partner landing pages, and clearly labelled commercial modules are not editorial content, even when they sit near editorial surfaces.
2. Sourcing and evidence standards
Time-sensitive claims about rates, fees, provider availability, licensing, or corridor support should be grounded in a current provider source, a maintained internal data source, or a primary regulatory or company document. Where information cannot be verified to that standard, the copy should be qualified rather than overstated.
Commentary and opinion are allowed, but they should be framed as judgement, not disguised as factual certainty.
3. Updates, freshness, and timestamps
Different content types age at different speeds. A corridor guide may remain useful for months, while a pricing claim can become stale in minutes. Public pages should not imply a universal freshness standard where one does not exist.
If a page makes a strong operational claim, it should either be backed by a current source or reworded to make the limitation clear.
4. Corrections policy
We welcome correction requests from users, providers, journalists, and regulators. If you spot a material error, email admin@compareremittancerates.com with the page URL, the issue, and any supporting source. Material factual issues should be corrected in the published page rather than silently ignored.
5. Commercial separation
Commercial arrangements can exist alongside editorial work, but they should be disclosed and separated clearly enough that a reader can tell what is paid, what is partnered, and what is organic.
The detailed rules sit in our Commercial Policy and Affiliate Disclosure. Rankings are governed by the Methodology.
6. Product copy is part of editorial quality
Trust is not created by policy pages alone. If a public UI label, badge, or CTA overstates what the product can verify, that is an editorial quality problem as much as a product problem. The site should prefer precise language over inflated confidence.
Related reading
The standards here work with our methodology and commercial rules. Journalists and partners should also review the disclosure documents below when quoting or describing the platform.