EDITORIAL STANDARDS
Our editorial policy is designed to make Golf Buying Guide useful, accurate, transparent, and independent of the commercial links that help fund the site.
Accuracy and sourcing
Factual product claims should be traceable to reliable evidence. We prioritize official specifications, manuals, warranty pages, rules resources, and direct manufacturer documentation. We use secondary sources for context when appropriate and avoid repeating unverified claims as fact. If a precise specification cannot be confirmed, we qualify or omit it.
Evidence labels
Research-based evaluation and original hands-on testing are not interchangeable. Most guides synthesize published specifications and accepted fitting considerations. We only describe a product as tested when the article documents an actual test and its limitations. Our full criteria appear in the Review Methodology.
Selection and rankings
Products are selected for relevance to the stated reader and criteria. We consider suitability, meaningful features, configuration options, availability, buying risk, and value in context. Manufacturers and retailers cannot purchase a guaranteed ranking or positive conclusion. Sponsored content, if ever published, must be clearly labeled and kept distinct from independent editorial recommendations.
Affiliate independence
Golf Buying Guide may earn commissions from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links help pay for hosting, research, editing, and site maintenance, but they do not change the price paid by the reader and do not guarantee coverage. A recommendation should remain defensible without the affiliate relationship. Details appear in our Affiliate Disclosure.
Product samples and access
If a manufacturer supplies a sample, loan unit, travel, or special access relevant to an article, that relationship should be disclosed in the article. Receiving a product does not guarantee favorable coverage, and material gifts should not be treated as payment for a ranking.
Updates
We prioritize updates to high-traffic and purchase-oriented guides. A substantive review may include fresh specification checks, availability checks, revised shortlists, new internal links, updated disclosures, and clearer limitations. We do not change publication dates merely to make old content appear new; displayed update dates should reflect meaningful editorial work.
Corrections
Readers, professionals, and companies may report suspected errors through our contact page. Please identify the page, disputed statement, and supporting primary source. We assess requests on evidence, not pressure or commercial interest. Material errors are corrected; clarifications may be added where technically accurate wording could still mislead.
Originality and AI-assisted tools
Published work must provide original organization, analysis, and reader value. Editorial tools may assist with research organization, drafting, formatting, or quality checks, but outputs require human-directed review for factual accuracy, relevance, disclosure, links, and clarity. Automated text is not accepted as evidence, and tools may not invent testing, experience, credentials, quotations, or sources.
Conflicts and accountability
Editors should avoid undisclosed financial interests that could compromise a recommendation. The collective Editorial Team byline identifies responsibility for research-based site content. We welcome good-faith correction requests and periodically refine this policy as the publication develops.