Editorial Policy

This policy governs all editorial content on Rankin. It exists to maintain credibility, ensure accuracy, and protect our independence.

Version 1.0 - Effective December 2025

Core Principles

1. Editorial Independence

Businesses cannot buy a higher editorial score.

• Rankings are editorial decisions based solely on published evaluation criteria
• No advertiser, partner, or ranked business receives preferential treatment
• Editorial and business teams operate separately; business relationships do not influence editorial decisions
• If a conflict of interest emerges (even perceived), we disclose it prominently or exclude the business from ranking

2. Accuracy & Verification

All factual claims must be verifiable and sourced.

• Facts (addresses, credentials, dates, prices) are verified against primary sources
• Claims about outcomes or quality are supported by evidence (awards, credentials, documented results)
• When information cannot be fully verified, we state limitations clearly
• Errors are corrected promptly and acknowledged publicly

3. Transparency

Readers must understand how rankings are created and what influences them.

• Methodology is published for every ranking category
• Criteria weights and scoring approaches are documented
• Last updated dates appear on all ranking pages
• Sources and data collection methods are disclosed
• Limitations of our approach are acknowledged

4. Objectivity & Fairness

Evaluations must be consistent, evidence-based, and free from personal bias.

• Multiple editors evaluate each ranking independently to reduce individual bias
• Scoring rubrics ensure consistent evaluation across businesses
• Personal relationships do not influence rankings (editors recuse themselves when conflicts exist)
• All businesses in a category are evaluated using identical criteria

What Does NOT Influence Rankings

Conflicts of Interest

Editor Responsibilities

All editors must:

• Disclose any financial interest in businesses being ranked
• Disclose personal relationships with business owners or employees
• Disclose if they have received services from a business within the past 2 years
• Recuse themselves from evaluating businesses where conflicts exist

How We Handle Conflicts

• Clear conflicts: Editor recuses; different editor evaluates
• Potential conflicts: Editor discloses; editorial leadership decides if recusal is needed
• Undisclosed conflicts: If discovered later, affected rankings are re-evaluated and corrections published

Correction Policy

Types of Errors

Factual Errors: Incorrect information (wrong address, misstated credential, outdated pricing)

• Action: Corrected within 24 hours of verification
• Disclosure: Correction note added to page; documented in changelog

Evaluation Errors: Mistakes in scoring or methodology application

• Action: Rankings recalculated and updated within 5 business days
• Disclosure: Explanation published on affected pages and changelog

Material Changes: Business undergoes significant change (ownership, quality shift, closure)

• Action: Re-evaluation within 30 days; immediate removal if closed
• Disclosure: Update note with reasoning

Submitting Corrections

Anyone can submit a correction request with supporting evidence. We respond within 5 business days with either:

1. Confirmation of correction and publication timeline
2. Explanation of why no correction is needed
3. Request for additional evidence if claim cannot be verified

Content Standards

Voice & Tone

• Clear, direct language accessible to general audiences
• Professional but not stuffy; helpful but not promotional
• No exaggeration or hyperbole ("world's best" requires global evaluation proof)
• Respectful of businesses even when rankings are low

Evidence Requirements

• Factual claims: Must cite verifiable source or clearly state when unverified
• Qualitative assessments: Must reference specific evidence (portfolio, credentials, awards)
• Pricing information: Must include date, source, and range rather than specific prices (which change)
• Comparative claims: Must be based on defined criteria and evidence, not opinion

Prohibited Content

• Defamatory statements without evidence
• Discriminatory language based on protected characteristics
• Unverified rumors or hearsay
• Personal attacks on business owners or employees
• Content designed to manipulate search rankings without providing value

Data Sources & Research Methods

Acceptable Sources

Primary sources (highest reliability):

• Business websites and portfolios
• Professional licensing databases
• Award databases (D&AD, Webby, medical boards, etc.)
• Direct observation (site visits, portfolio review)
• Published interviews and case studies

Secondary sources (moderate reliability):

• Design/industry publications with editorial standards
• Client testimonials (treated as subjective opinion)
• Press coverage from reputable outlets

Tertiary sources (low reliability, used cautiously):

• Review platforms (verified patterns only, not individual reviews)
• Social media mentions (supporting evidence only)
• Aggregated lists from other sites (never primary basis for ranking)

Research Methods

• Portfolio analysis: Blind review (names hidden) scored on published rubrics
• Credential verification: Cross-checked with licensing boards and professional associations
• Site visits: Conducted anonymously when possible, never scheduled with advance notice that could allow preparation
• Outcome tracking: Public case studies, client success stories, award wins

Updates & Maintenance

Update Schedule

• Quarterly reviews: All categories reviewed every 3 months for score adjustments, new businesses, removed businesses
• Immediate updates: Business closures, license suspensions, major quality incidents trigger updates within 72 hours of verification
• Annual methodology reviews: Criteria and weights evaluated annually; material changes announced 30 days in advance

Change Documentation

All ranking changes, methodology updates, and corrections are documented in our public changelog with dates and reasoning.

User-Generated Content Policy

Rankin does not currently accept user-generated reviews or ratings. If we add this feature in the future, we will:

• Verify reviewer identity to prevent fake reviews
• Moderate content to remove defamatory or discriminatory statements
• Separate user reviews from editorial rankings clearly
• Allow businesses to respond to reviews
• Publish moderation standards transparently

Advertising Policy

When we introduce advertising (planned future feature):

• Ads will be clearly labeled and visually distinct from editorial content
• Advertisers receive zero influence over rankings
• Editorial and ad sales teams operate independently
• We will not accept ads for businesses actively ranked in that category on that page (prevents appearance of pay-for-play)
• Native advertising and sponsored content are prohibited

Legal & Ethical Compliance

Legal Boundaries

• Rankings are opinions based on published criteria (protected editorial content)
• Factual statements are verifiable or clearly marked as unverified
• We do not publish content we know to be false
• We do not make claims with "reckless disregard" for truth

Response to Legal Threats

If a business threatens legal action over a ranking:

1. We review the content for factual errors
2. We correct any verified errors immediately
3. We do not change rankings or subjective assessments under pressure
4. We consult legal counsel if necessary
5. We document the situation in our changelog if it affects published content

Policy Updates

This policy may be updated to reflect operational changes, legal requirements, or lessons learned. Material changes will be:

• Announced on the site with 30 days notice
• Documented with effective date and summary of changes
• Archived for transparency (previous versions remain accessible)

Contact

Questions about this policy:

• Editorial questions: editorial@thetop10rank.com
• Corrections: Correction form
• Ethics concerns: ethics@thetop10rank.com