Accuracy is a responsibility
Our purpose is to help readers understand the information behind an online store. That means explaining how a conclusion was reached, what supports it and what remains uncertain. An attractive website, an established domain or a published returns policy can be relevant context. None proves that every customer will receive good service.
These are the standards StraightReview works to as it develops. They are publishing commitments, not a claim that every store has passed an independent audit. StraightReview LLC, based in New York, United States, is responsible for the material published under the StraightReview name.
Show what the evidence establishes
Our editorial standard is to distinguish the following kinds of information rather than blending them into a single claim of verification:
- Store information: policies, product descriptions and statements published by the retailer. These establish what the store says, not necessarily how it performs.
- Independent sources: relevant official records or other attributable information that supports a particular fact.
- Customer reports: accounts of individual experiences, considered with attention to their date, relevance and limitations.
- Publisher background: information supplied by the person commissioning or publishing an assessment, identified where material.
- Editorial judgement: our interpretation of the evidence, expressed as an opinion with reasons.
Where sources disagree, we should explain the disagreement or narrow the conclusion. Missing evidence is not proof of wrongdoing; it is also not a reason to imply that a check has been completed.
Describe the work actually performed
Reading a shipping policy is different from placing an order. Checking public business information is different from inspecting an office, auditing finances or testing a checkout for security vulnerabilities. A review should make its scope clear and should not describe an experience that did not happen.
We do not invent customer testimonials, review counts, test purchases, certifications or expert credentials. A favourable conclusion should identify its limitations, including important claims that rely on store-provided or publisher-supplied information. Our editorial notice explains how to read these assessments.
Keep conclusions proportionate
Our standard is to consider meaningful positives and concerns, avoid overstating isolated reports and explain what could change a verdict. We do not treat a single complaint as a representative survey or a lack of complaints as proof that there are no problems.
Relevant financial, commercial or personal connections belong alongside the affected content. Sponsored material must be distinguishable from editorial assessment. See our disclosure policy for how these relationships should be explained.
Use tools responsibly and correct mistakes
Technology, including AI-assisted tools, can help organize research, draft copy, create illustrations and prepare pages. It does not independently establish that a statement is true. The publisher remains responsible for editorial conclusions and for checking material claims against the evidence described.
Illustrations are not evidence of a store's operations or photographs of our employees. Assessment dates describe the evidence considered at that time, not continuous monitoring. Material factual corrections should be made transparently under our corrections and complaints policy. If you identify an error, email contact@straightreview.com with the relevant page and source.
Clear sources. Useful context. A considered view.