Editorial standards
Our articles help people make product, design and website decisions. The standard is a useful answer supported by evidence a reader can inspect. A search ranking or a persuasive headline is not evidence.
Sources and examples
Material claims should link to the original documentation, research or provider information. Prices and screenshots describe the date observed, currency, billing period and relevant plan. Readers should confirm an offer before buying.
We distinguish shipped project work from concepts, prototypes and hypothetical examples. A design observation is not a measured conversion result. Worked calculations identify their assumptions; a calculator allowance is not a market survey or a project quote.
Comparisons and commercial interests
Comparisons explain their criteria and evidence. Reading a vendor page is different from using its product or hiring its team. Where our own service appears, it is identified. Other providers may be a better fit for a reader's budget, requirements or team.
Review and corrections
Our publication process calls for source checks, an editorial review and inspection of the rendered page. The same standard applies to older articles and new work. An update date should reflect a substantive correction or addition, not a routine site build. It does not imply that every linked provider was checked that day.
If you find an unsupported claim, broken source or material error, email hello@suur.io with the article URL and the passage. Corrections should preserve the original publication date and explain significant changes where useful.
Authorship and AI assistance
Artyom Sklyarov is responsible for the editorial direction and published content. AI tools assist with research, drafting, editing and technical checks. Their output does not establish a fact or substitute for source verification.