ExpressPigeon editorial standards
We publish ecommerce guides and research that readers can understand, check and use. That means showing where information comes from, putting first-hand experience ahead of recycled advice and being clear about how we test the software we recommend. This page explains how we research, write, review and update ExpressPigeon content.
Our editorial standards
Experience comes first
We prefer advice from people who have actually done the work.
That might mean testing an ecommerce platform, running a conversion experiment, managing a campaign or working directly with customers.
Experience doesn’t replace evidence. But it helps us ask better questions and notice the problems you won’t find by reading a product page.
We go to the original source
When a primary source is available, that’s where we start.
For product features and pricing, that normally means the vendor’s documentation, pricing pages and product. For statistics, we trace claims back to the original research wherever possible.
Secondary sources can add context. They shouldn’t become evidence simply because lots of other articles repeat the same number.
Opinions need evidence
Our writers and editors are allowed to have an opinion. Useful reviews normally need one. But readers should be able to see how we got there.
We separate facts from judgments, explain the criteria behind comparisons and show the evidence behind important conclusions.
We use outside expertise when it improves the article
Nobody knows every part of ecommerce and marketing.
We interview contributors, customers and product experts when their experience adds something our editorial team can’t get from research alone.
We don’t include a quote simply because it sounds authoritative. It has to help answer the question.
How we review software
Software reviews need more than a feature list copied from the vendor’s website. Here’s how we approach them.
1. Define the criteria
Before testing, we decide what matters for the audience and use case.
That can include usability, important workflows, integrations, automation, reporting, support, pricing and value.
Defining the criteria first reduces the temptation to move the goalposts once we’ve formed an opinion.
2. Start with a fresh account
Where possible, we create a clean account and approach the platform as a new customer would.
If there’s no public trial or free plan, we may ask the vendor for testing access. Access does not guarantee positive coverage.
3. Use the important features ourselves
We work through the workflows that matter for the review. The exact tests depend on the product. A CRM, POS system, and ecommerce platform shouldn’t be judged using exactly the same checklist. We document what works, where the friction is and anything that doesn’t match the product’s marketing.
4. Capture our own evidence
We take screenshots and recordings while testing. These let readers see the interface and workflows for themselves instead of relying only on our description.
5. Test support and documentation
We test support channels (email, chat, help desk) with real questions to assess responsiveness, accuracy, and helpfulness.
We also evaluate the quality and depth of self-help resources: guides, FAQs, documentation, and tutorials.
6. Fact-check and expert review
Each draft goes through multiple internal reviews and fact-checking passes to verify claims.
We also ask external experts or power users when relevant to validate our understanding and reduce bias.
7. Keep watching after publication
Software changes. We monitor pricing, product releases and important platform changes. When an update materially changes our review, we revisit it.
Contributor standards
Contributed articles follow the same basic standards as work produced internally.
Contributors must
- Write from genuine expertise
- Support important claims
- Disclose relevant commercial interests
- Provide original work
- Cooperate with editorial fact-checking and editing
How we use AI
AI tools can be useful. They can also make it very easy to publish information nobody has properly checked.
Our team may use AI tools for tasks such as brainstorming, transcription, organizing research and editing assistance.
AI doesn’t replace:
- First-hand product testing
- Expert experience
- Original research
- Primary sources
- Editorial judgment
- Fact-checking
We do not knowingly publish fabricated AI-generated quotes, statistics, experience or product testing.
The person responsible for an article is responsible for checking the final article, regardless of which tools were used while creating it.
Feedback
Readers often notice things we don’t.
If you disagree with a conclusion, have first-hand experience that adds context or spot information that needs updating, get in touch.
We will review the evidence.