Editorial standards

What these titles are. They publish consumer technology analysis, comparison and argument — not original reporting. We do not run an investigations desk, we do not have newsroom sources, and we do not present ourselves as having either. Saying so first makes everything below checkable.

Within that, the rules are:

• A factual claim — a price, a specification, a regulation, a date, a figure — is checked against a primary source: the manufacturer, the regulator, the operator, the published standard, or the document itself.
• Where a primary source exists online, we link to it. A reader should never have to take a number on trust when the number has a public home.
• Figures are dated in the text, because prices and specifications move. An undated number is a number that will be wrong eventually.
• We do not use anonymous sources. If a claim cannot be attributed to something a reader can check, it is opinion and is written as opinion.
• Where a piece is a personal experience — a device that failed, a support call that went badly — it says so, and it is not generalised into a claim about the product as a whole.
• We do not republish press releases as articles. Where an announcement is the subject, it is named as an announcement and the company making it is named.

The opinions are ours and we defend them. The facts underneath them are checkable, and if one is wrong, clause 5 is the route.

Views published across the titles are opinion, and nothing published anywhere in the network is professional advice. §9 and §10 of the privacy notice and terms set out both positions in full.

G R Sites is published by a small distributed group of contributors from mixed backgrounds — IT professionals, a homemaker, a frequent traveller, car enthusiasts, someone who writes about personal finance, and consumer-technology reviewers who buy the products they write about. Nobody here is a full-time journalist, and the about page says so in more detail.

Whoever writes a piece, G R Sites is responsible for it. Publication is the point at which the network takes ownership of a claim. A reader with a complaint does not need to find the writer; they write to us, and we answer.

We do not publish under invented author identities, and we do not attach a fabricated biography, photograph or credential to a piece. If a contributor has relevant expertise it may be stated; if they do not, nothing is claimed on their behalf.

Where a contributor has a material interest in something they are writing about — they own it, they are paid by the company, a relative works there — that is disclosed in the piece or the piece is reassigned.

Stated plainly, because a vague answer here is worse than an unwelcome one.

AI tools may be used in producing what we publish. Typically for research, for structuring a draft, for tightening language, and for the ordinary editing work a copy editor would otherwise do. We are not going to claim a blanket prohibition we would then have to police, and a reader is better served by knowing where the limits actually sit.

The limits are these, and they are absolute:

• A person is responsible for every published claim. Nothing is published because a model asserted it. Every factual statement is checked against clause 2 regardless of how the draft was produced.
• No fabricated evidence. We do not publish quotes, interviews, test results, measurements, statistics, citations or sources that a model produced and a person did not verify against the real thing. This is the failure mode that matters, and it is a dismissal-grade breach of this policy.
• No synthetic images presented as real. We do not publish a generated image of a product, a place or a person in a way that implies it is a photograph.
• No fake first-hand experience. If a piece says we used a device, someone used the device.

Where an article's substance is machine-generated rather than merely machine-assisted, it is labelled on the page. We accept that the line between the two takes judgement; the test we apply is whether a reader would feel misled to learn how it was made.

Write to grsites15@gmail.com with the article address, what is wrong, and what it should say. The contact page has a prefilled route that asks for exactly those three things.

We acknowledge every correction request within 24 hours. That is an acknowledgement from a person, not an automated receipt. Resolution takes as long as checking takes, and we will tell you where it has got to.

How a correction is handled:

• If the point is upheld, the article is corrected and a dated correction note is added to the article itself.
• We do not silently edit. Fixing a factual error without saying so turns a mistake into a misrepresentation, and a reader who noticed the original has no way to know we agreed with them.
• Typographical fixes that change no meaning are made without a note.
• Where a claim was materially wrong and prominent, the note goes at the top of the article rather than the bottom.
• If we do not uphold the point, we say so and say why. Clause 10 is the escalation.
• We do not delete an article to make a complaint go away. Removal happens for legal reasons or because the piece fails these standards outright — not because its subject would prefer it gone.

This is the clause that matters most, so it is the one written most precisely.

That scope is deliberate and it is worth being explicit about what it does and does not say. Every link anybody paid for is qualified — there is no threshold, no exception for small amounts, and no exception for a favour. The rule does not extend to ordinary coverage nobody paid for, because marking unpaid editorial as sponsored would be a different lie.

Alongside the attribute, a paid placement is labelled in the page where a reader will see it, not only in the markup where only a crawler will.

And where there is no link to attach it to — an article that does not link to you, a banner, a sponsored section — the placement is labelled as advertising in the page where a reader will see it. Every paid placement is disclosed one way or the other, and an advertiser cannot buy the removal of either label.

From when. This clause binds what the network publishes from the date at the head of this page onward, on the same terms as clause 1. Material inherited with a previously registered domain, and anything published before this policy existed, is being reviewed against it rather than assumed to meet it — clause 8 describes that work, and describes it as ongoing rather than finished.

We run no affiliate programme. No link on any of the fifteen titles earns a commission on a sale, and there is no affiliate network operating in the background. If that ever changes, affiliate links will be qualified and labelled under this same clause before a single one is published, and this document will be updated first.

We do not accept payment to remove or amend an existing article, and we do not accept payment for an undisclosed link inside one. Requests to do either are declined; the refusal list is the full statement of what we will not publish at any price.

What placement costs, and how ordering works

Advertisers have no input into editorial. Specifically:

• They do not see articles before publication.
• They cannot request the removal of the sponsored label or the link attribute.
• They cannot commission, influence or veto coverage of a competitor.
• Buying a placement on one title buys nothing on the other fourteen.
• Buying a placement does not buy favourable coverage elsewhere on the same title, now or later.
• Placements that fail the published refusal list are declined before any money changes hands — including after a price has been discussed.

Where a piece covers a company that is also an advertiser, the relationship is disclosed in that piece. We would rather state a connection a reader might have shrugged at than have them find it themselves.

G R Sites is a trading name. It is not an incorporated company, it holds no company registration number, and it does not maintain a public registered office. The contact of record is grsites15@gmail.com.

Funding is disclosed advertising and sponsored placement. That is the whole list. There is no paywall, no subscription, no affiliate income, no investor and no undisclosed commercial arrangement behind any title. All fifteen titles are published by the same publisher; none is a front for a third party.

Who publishes these titles, and why there are fifteen

The privacy notice is the full statement. In summary, for this site:

• There is no account to create, no newsletter, and no login.
• The contact form composes a message and hands it to your own mail application. It sends nothing from the page and stores nothing.
• The advertising order builder keeps your draft order in your own browser’s local storage so it survives a reload. It is not transmitted anywhere until you choose to send it.
• The home page loads the latest headline from each of the fifteen titles, which means fifteen requests to those sites. They are our own domains, but they are third-party requests from your browser’s point of view, and the privacy notice names them.
• We do not sell reader data. We do not have reader data to sell.

The fifteen titles are hosted on Blogger, which is operated by Google and sets its own cookies and collects its own analytics under Google’s terms rather than ours. We can describe that; we cannot control it, and we will not imply otherwise.

A complaint about accuracy starts as a correction request under clause 5. A complaint about conduct, fairness, disclosure or this policy itself goes to grsites15@gmail.com on the legal route.

Tell us the article, what you say is wrong with it, and what you want done. We will tell you what we decided and why. If you disagree with the outcome you may say so once more in writing, and it will be looked at again by someone who did not make the first decision.

After that, we are the end of the process, and you should know that before you start. G R Sites is not a member of a press regulator or an independent complaints body, and we are not going to name one to look more accountable than we are. If you are not satisfied, your remaining routes are the ones the law gives you, and nothing in this document limits them.

Copyright, defamation, privacy and takedown notices should go to the same legal route. Include the exact URL, what right you rely on, your capacity to act, and contact details we can answer on — an email address at minimum, since a notice we cannot reply to is a notice we cannot resolve. §11 of the privacy notice and terms is the full list and sets out what happens after a notice arrives.

This document is reviewed annually, and immediately whenever something in it stops being true — a new funding source, a change to how AI is used, a new placement type. The date at the head of the page is the last review, and it is edited by hand rather than generated, so it cannot quietly claim a review that never happened.

Last reviewed: 9 August 2026.

If you are reading this more than a year after that date and it has not moved, that is a fair thing to raise on the editorial route.