Editorial Policy

How we research, review, and publish on ScissorBrands.com.

Core Principles

  • Verifiability: Every factual statement links to a Tier‑1 or Tier‑2 source. When data is unavailable we state “not disclosed.”
  • Attribution: Opinions come from named professionals or aggregated user reviews with sample sizes.
  • Balance: Comparisons highlight trade-offs instead of declaring absolute winners.

Workflow Overview

Our eleven-step workflow ensures legal, technical, and voice alignment.

  1. Planning: analytics and audience gaps shape the backlog.
  2. Research & Outline: Scissorpedia → manufacturer materials → professional forums → authorized retailers.
  3. Draft: Writers produce evidence-based copy in the “knowledgeable curator” voice.
  4. Edit: Editors verify legality, technical accuracy, structure, and SEO readiness.
  5. Revision: Writers address all critical and high-priority edits.
  6. Images & Rights: Designers source licensed imagery and update the rights ledger.
  7. Formatting & SEO: Schema, internal links, metadata, and accessibility checks.
  8. QA: Page-level review for completeness, performance, and legal compliance.
  9. Publish: Deployment to production and search console submission.
  10. Promotion: Social, newsletter, and community outreach.
  11. Monitor & Update: Post-launch audits with scheduled refreshes.

Language Standards

We default to American English, avoid hype phrases (“game-changing,” “unlock”), and explain technical terms on first use. Sentences average 16–20 words and stay in active voice.

Legal Guardrails

We never publish accusations of fraud, fake steel, or counterfeiting without legal review. Brands or distributors that fail our sourcing or compliance checks do not appear on ScissorBrands.com.

Corrections & Updates

If you spot an error, contact scissorhubaus@gmail.com. We verify, document the change, and annotate the page with an update note when warranted.