Editorial Policy

Start with a decision a reader needs to make

A page should answer a real cooking, storage, ingredient, or dining question. The answer belongs near the beginning, followed by the conditions that make it useful. We avoid introductions that delay the number, ratio, or distinction the reader came to find.

Search demand can help identify questions, but it does not establish the answer. A popular query is not a reason to repeat an unsafe shortcut or invent a universal ratio. If the useful answer is conditional, the page should explain the condition plainly.

Sources must match the claim

For food safety, we prioritize relevant public guidance from authorities such as FDA, USDA FSIS, CDC, FoodSafety.gov, and university extension services. A restaurant practice or a preferred texture should not be presented as equivalent to an official safety recommendation.

For ingredient substitutions and cooking methods, we use sources with relevant direct knowledge: recipe authors documenting their own methods, specialist baking organizations, and manufacturers describing their products. Manufacturer guidance is attributed and limited to the context it supports.

A source title in a list is not enough. The linked material must support the claim beside it, and its assumptions must not disappear in the rewrite. If two references use different methods or quantities, we explain the distinction or choose one complete method. We do not average incompatible instructions into a new claim.

Keep researched guidance separate from firsthand work

A source-based guide explains published guidance and applies it through original examples or decision tools. It does not claim that the author performed a laboratory test, a taste panel, or a restaurant visit.

A firsthand test needs records of what was tested, where and when it happened, the relevant equipment and quantities, and the observations that support the verdict. Measured results must come from measurements. An illustration, a planned protocol, or a plausible narrative is not a substitute.

Restaurant coverage requires actual visit information for claims about meals eaten, service experienced, and prices paid. Publicly available facts can support a researched travel resource, but they do not become a personal visit merely by being written in the first person.

Use numbers with their units and limits

US units appear first where that serves the intended audience, with metric equivalents where helpful. Temperature differences and absolute temperatures are handled differently. Cups are identified when a US cup may be confused with an appliance's measuring cup.

Tools show their formulas or reference tables. Outputs are rounded to practical precision, and the page explains what the calculation does not know. A cooking-time estimate is not a food-safety certification; scaling dough weights is not a fermentation prediction.

Worked examples are identified as examples. They must agree with the tool and add up. If a result depends on a particular product, cooking method, or starting condition, that dependency stays visible rather than being buried in a general disclaimer.

AI assistance and images

AI may assist with drafting and organization. Content is still expected to be original, useful, and grounded in identifiable sources. We do not use an AI answer as evidence for a factual claim merely because it sounds confident.

Images may illustrate an ingredient, a storage setup, or a food texture, but they do not document a measured result or a visit. Safety judgments must not depend on comparing food to a picture. We do not fabricate receipts, measured thermometer readings, or author experiences.

Questions, updates, and corrections

FAQ sections may contain editorial questions chosen to resolve likely reader confusion. They are not described as extracted from search-engine data unless that research has actually been performed. A useful question does not need an invented research pedigree.

Publication and update dates should describe real events. Correcting a substantive fact, method, or recommendation warrants a meaningful update record. Cosmetic changes should not be used to make old research appear newly checked.

When an error affects a reader's decision, correcting the answer takes priority over defending the original wording. The correction should reach the relevant answer, table, tool, and FAQ wherever the same mistake appears. A tool formula and its article must not tell different stories.

Independence and publication readiness

Commercial relationships should be disclosed clearly. Payment, free products, or future advertising revenue must not be disguised as independent evidence. Brand names are used where needed to identify a product or source, not to imply affiliation.

Before publication, a page needs a complete answer, relevant sources, accurate examples, working links, and an honest description of its evidence. Word counts and page counts are internal planning aids, not guarantees of search performance or advertising approval. A page that merely fills a slot in the navigation is not ready.