Editorial Policy

What we publish and why

We publish practical analysis about domain intelligence, brand protection, typosquatting and domain-based risk. The aim is to be useful to a brand-protection, legal or security reader whether or not they ever engage us — so the writing favours accuracy and nuance over marketing.

How we research

We base factual claims on primary sources where we can: ICANN policy and RDAP/WHOIS documentation, registry and registrar practices, published standards, and reputable security research. Where a topic is contested or evolving, we say so rather than presenting one view as settled. Domain data ages quickly; treat figures and TLD details as correct at the time of writing.

Honesty about limits

Domain intelligence is probabilistic, not certain. We are explicit about false positives, coverage gaps in any domain database, and cases where a signal is ambiguous. We would rather tell you what a method cannot do than oversell it.

Accuracy and corrections

If we publish something inaccurate, we fix it. Material corrections — anything that changes the meaning or the advice — are made promptly and noted on the article rather than quietly edited. Minor fixes (typos, broken links) are made without a note. Spotted an error? Email [email protected] with the URL and what you believe is wrong.

Use of AI

We may use AI tools to help draft, outline or edit. AI is never the final authority: a person is responsible for every published article, checks its facts, and stands behind it. We do not publish unreviewed machine-generated text.

Independence

Our analysis is not for sale. We do not publish sponsored content dressed up as editorial, and we do not invent statistics, credentials or endorsements. If a commercial relationship ever affected what we wrote about a specific product or vendor, we would disclose it on that article.

Related: About · Methodology · Accessibility