Editorial Policy
How dothinker AI nav reviews tools, scenario guides, and AI-assisted content.
Review principles
Published pages should help readers make a practical decision. Tool claims need source links or conservative wording, the order tools appear in a list needs visible reasoning, and workflow pages must include review checkpoints.
AI-assisted content
AI may help draft summaries, prompts, and checklists, but AI-generated content must stay in draft or pending review until a human checks facts, sources, and risk notes.
Source handling
Tool pages prefer official product pages, documentation, GitHub repositories, pricing pages, and vendor policy pages. Secondary commentary can be useful for context, but it should not replace primary sources for facts that affect buying, automation, privacy, or publishing decisions.
Ordering methodology
The order tools appear in within category and scenario lists is editorial, not paid placement. It uses practical workflow coverage, source confidence, category relevance, and manual judgment. If traffic, click data, sponsorship, or affiliate relationships are added later, the page should state how those signals are used.
Correction process
When a reader or vendor reports an error, the preferred fix is to update the reviewed field, record a source URL, and keep risky claims conservative. AI should not overwrite reviewed human content directly; it should create a draft or change log for manual acceptance.
Thin-content controls
Functional pages, short drafts, and incomplete localized mirrors can remain available to users while being kept out of search indexing until they have enough publisher content. This keeps navigation useful without asking search engines or ad reviewers to treat unfinished pages as editorial inventory.
Human judgment
Editorial review focuses on whether a page helps the reader avoid a real mistake: choosing the wrong tool, uploading sensitive data, trusting unsupported AI output, missing a platform policy, or treating an early draft as a verified business claim.
How this page is used
This trust page supports the same editorial boundary used across the directory: readers should know who maintains the page, how claims are reviewed, where commercial incentives may appear, and how mistakes can be corrected. It also helps separate publisher content from functional pages such as search, submission forms, support hubs, or temporary localized mirrors that may stay available without being treated as search-indexed advertising inventory. When policies, vendors, or product capabilities change, these pages should be updated before expanding ads or automated publishing flows, because trust context is part of the user experience, not a footer-only compliance note. The practical test is simple: a reader should be able to understand the site's incentives, correction path, and review standard without guessing how the directory turns submissions and AI-assisted drafts into published pages. That standard also applies before any new ad placement is introduced publicly.