Editorial Standards

Clear sources. Honest limits. Useful detail. These are the standards we use to build the Kush Compass editorial collection.

Start with the reader’s question.

Every guide should answer a specific question. Explain terminology, show the important tradeoffs, and give the reader a useful next step.

Show the evidence.

Use primary sources where possible. Attribute claims, link to relevant documentation, and distinguish manufacturer specifications from our own observations. Legal-market coverage must identify its location and last-reviewed date.

Be precise about reviews.

Use “tested” or “hands-on” only when a product has actually been examined and the work is documented. Research-based comparisons must say how the information was gathered and what remains untested. Discuss limitations alongside benefits. Explain the criteria behind any recommendation.

Keep commercial relationships visible.

Place clear disclosures near affiliate recommendations. Label sponsored work. Free samples, payments, and other relevant relationships must be identified. Payment must not buy a favorable ranking.

Keep people and dates real.

Publish with an accurate author identity and appropriate dates. Never invent credentials, interview quotes, test results, customer experiences, or review scores.

Review and correct.

Check links and sources before publication. Revisit material when facts, products, or official guidance change. Send factual corrections with the article URL and supporting evidence to hello@kushcompass.co.

These standards draw on Google’s guidance on useful reviews and the FTC’s endorsement guidance.