How we work
Our editorial standards
We hold ourselves to a written standard so you don’t have to take our word for it. This page documents exactly how PuupNews chooses topics, runs tests, sources facts, and handles mistakes.
Last updated · April 25, 2026
The four pillars
What we promise
We test, then we write
Every product we review is installed, paid for if needed, and used for at least two weeks before we form an opinion. No “hot takes” based on press releases.
Independence first
No vendor pays for a positive review. No advertiser dictates editorial. Sponsorships, when they exist, are clearly labelled and never inserted mid-article.
Sources you can verify
When we cite stats, prices, or vendor claims, we link to the source. If a source disappears, we update the article or note the discrepancy.
Corrections, not deletions
When we get something wrong we update the article in place, with a dated correction note at the bottom. Articles are not silently deleted to hide mistakes.
Review methodology
How we evaluate software
Real-world testing
We use the software the way an actual user would — not a benchmark suite. Reviews include observed install size, performance hit, daily-use friction, and edge-case failures.
Privacy & security weight
For Chrome extensions, VPNs, and AI tools, we read the privacy policy, check requested permissions, look for known incidents, and weigh that against the convenience the tool provides.
Pricing transparency
We document the actual cost, the trial mechanics, the cancellation friction, and any upsell pressure. “Free” products that monetise via data are flagged clearly.
Comparison with peers
A review only earns a recommendation if it can hold up against at least two close competitors we have also tested. We don’t recommend in a vacuum.
Long-term updates
Software changes. We revisit reviews of products we recommend at least once a year, or sooner if there is a significant update or incident.
Money & influence
Sponsorship & advertising policy
PuupNews is funded primarily by display advertising and a small number of affiliate partnerships. None of these arrangements influence which products we cover, what conclusions we reach, or how prominently a product appears in a list.
Where any article includes affiliate links, we disclose it inline. See our affiliate disclosure for full details.
We do not currently publish sponsored articles. If that ever changes, sponsored content will:
- Be marked clearly with a “Sponsored” label.
- Disclose the sponsoring company by name at the top.
- Be excluded from recommendation roundups and “best of” lists.
- Never carry an editorial author byline.
When we get it wrong
Corrections policy
We publish a lot. We will sometimes make mistakes. When that happens, here is what we do:
- Minor edits (typos, broken links, formatting) are fixed silently.
- Factual corrections are noted at the bottom of the article with a date and a one-line description of what was wrong and what was changed.
- Substantial changes (such as re-evaluating a recommendation after a security incident) are noted in a prominent banner at the top of the article.
- URLs are preserved. If we retire an article entirely, we redirect it rather than letting the link 404.
Spot a mistake or a conflict of interest?
Editorial complaints, corrections, and conflict-of-interest notices all go to the same place. We read every message and respond within five working days.
Contact the editors