Editorial standards

Our editorial rules

1. Start with the user's decision, not a keyword target.
2. Prefer official public-health, pesticide-regulator and evidence-based institutional sources for safety-critical claims.
3. Separate prevention, monitoring and treatment instead of presenting one tactic as a cure-all.
4. Do not call a pesticide or method “safe” without context. Use lower-exposure or label-compliant language where appropriate.
5. Do not claim first-hand product testing unless it actually occurred and can be documented.
6. Correct outdated or unsupported legacy content rather than preserving it for traffic.
7. Mark medical, poisoning, allergy, structural and dangerous-nest situations as escalation points.

Source priority

For core safety claims we prefer primary or authoritative sources such as the US EPA, CDC, FTC and equivalent public authorities. Commercial product pages may explain their own specifications, but they are not treated as neutral evidence of efficacy.

Updates and corrections

Pages display a last-reviewed date. We revisit guidance when source recommendations change, when a legacy claim is found to be misleading, or when a page no longer answers the search intent well.

AI use

Automation may assist with structure, language review or consistency checks. Safety-sensitive claims are expected to be grounded in cited authoritative sources, and generated text is not treated as evidence.

Corrections are part of the product

If a claim is materially wrong, we prefer changing it over defending an old ranking or preserving a traffic page. Redirects are used when a new page genuinely replaces an old one; unrelated pages are allowed to return a real 404 rather than being redirected to the homepage.

Search optimization rule

SEO begins with search intent and site structure, not with keyword repetition. Titles and headings should describe the decision the page helps make. Internal links are added where a reader would reasonably need the next step, not simply to increase link count.