Editorial standards
These are the rules every page across all six Baker Ventures sites is written under. They are published so they can be held against us, which is the only thing that makes a statement like this worth anything.
The short version: every claim links to a primary source, competitor prices come from the vendor's own page and carry a date, unverifiable figures are omitted rather than estimated, and we disclose our own products on every page they appear on — including the pages where a competitor is the better answer.
Sourcing
Every factual claim links to a primary source. IRS claims link to irs.gov. Apple claims link to developer.apple.com. Google Play claims link to Google's own support documentation. Research claims link to the paper.
Where a primary source renders client-side, we read it in a browser and say so. Apple's required-reason API reason codes are the clearest case: that documentation page returns an empty shell to a plain HTTP fetch, which is precisely why incorrect copies of the table circulate. Ours carries the date it was transcribed and the method.
Where sources conflict, both are given and the conflict is named. RWS Life Sciences and the NIH-funded PhenX Toolkit take contradictory positions on whether the Greene Climacteric Scale requires permission for use. We do not resolve that by choosing the answer that suits us; we state that it is unresolved.
Where a widely repeated claim is wrong, it is corrected — including when the correction is against our interest. NICE guideline NG23 does not recommend menopause symptom diaries, and HormoneLog would be easier to market if it did. The frequently-cited "28 apps averaged 3.1 out of 5" statistic does not appear in the review it is attributed to.
Competitor pricing
From the vendor's own pricing page, with the date it was checked. Not from aggregators, review sites or comparison directories, which in these categories are routinely stale.
If it cannot be verified at source, no number is published. DetailPilot's pricing page is client-side rendered and DetailDeck's /pricing has returned a 404, so no price for either appears anywhere on our sites. These are small companies whose founders read what is written about them, and an unverified price is a correction waiting to happen.
We name the tier you actually need, not the advertised one. Where a vendor's entry tier omits something most buyers require — Jobber's Core lacking QuickBooks and GPS, Housecall Pro's Basic doing the same — the comparison uses the realistic tier and says why.
Our own product facts
Our own numbers get the same verification a competitor's price page gets. Counted from the source, dated, and re-counted before any page carrying them is re-dated.
This line exists because it failed. FlirtGym's site claimed "190 practice scenarios" as a distinguishing feature. Counted from the code, the real number is 101: a cull had been executed and the advertised figure was never updated. The claim was live on this site, in the app's store listing, and in the advertising copy pack, where it was specifically offered as an example of an honest proof point on the reasoning that fabricated social proof is prohibited so only verifiable product facts remain.
That reasoning is correct. What failed is that "verifiable" was assumed rather than performed, on the one class of number nobody thought to check because we own it. A rule saying every number traces to a source is weaker than it sounds when the source is us and nobody goes and looks.
The same applies to claims about how our software behaves. FlirtGym's pages said the practice AI "disengages if the conversation goes flat"; that instruction exists only at the hardest of three settings, and the default is the middle one. Both claims are corrected, and both corrections came from someone reading the code rather than the copy.
A claim also lives in more places than the sentence you wrote it in. Both of the above were additionally sitting in _facts.json, which feeds the structured data on every page and the public facts.json — the copy an AI assistant is most likely to quote verbatim. Fixing prose without fixing structured data leaves the wrong claim in the machine-readable version.
Evidence labelling
Vendor-sourced statistics are labelled vendor-sourced. The frequently-quoted "15–25 percent no-show rate falling to under 5 percent with deposits" appears verbatim across multiple mobile-detailing software vendors — which makes it consistent, not independent. Everyone publishing it sells deposit features.
Single tests are labelled single tests. EntreCourier's hands-on finding that one gig app captured about 51 percent of odometer miles is one tester's experience, documented and specific, and not a controlled study.
Contested findings are labelled contested, with the counter-argument. The 94 percent divorce-prediction figure is contested by Heyman & Slep (2001) on the grounds that the models were fitted and evaluated on the same sample without cross-validation. We do not use it.
Ranges are given where the underlying figures disagree. Femtech market sizing varies roughly sevenfold across research firms depending on category definition, so it is cited as a range or not at all.
Disclosure
Our own products are disclosed on every page they appear on, including comparison and roundup pages.
Status is stated plainly and never softened. Four of our six products are in development and not released, and every page they appear on says so. FlirtGym is live and its date is given. "Coming soon" with no date is not used.
Competitors that beat us are named, with the reason. Rizz has tens of thousands of App Store ratings and FlirtGym does not. MileIQ is free with Microsoft 365 Business, which makes it the cheapest capable option in its own comparison table. Jobber and Housecall Pro are more capable products than Rigsheet. Balance is the sensible first install for most people looking at menopause apps.
Claims we could make and do not. Rigsheet's $19 entry price is not unique — ZenMaid Starter is also $19. Unlimited users is not category-unique — Urable includes it on every tier. Both would read well and neither is true.
What we will not do
No fabricated social proof. No invented ratings, user counts, testimonials or press placements. The FTC's rule (16 CFR Part 465, effective 21 October 2024) bans fake and AI-generated reviews with civil penalties in the tens of thousands per violation — and separately, a single invented number would make everything else on these sites worthless.
No fake community accounts or coordinated voting.
No mass-generated thin pages. Every page is written to be worth reading on its own.
No deficit-diagnosis marketing. We name situations, not people. "She stopped replying — here is the message that restarts it," never "you are the reason she stopped replying." This began as an advertising rule for one product and became the house rule for all of them.
No medical, legal, tax or financial advice. Our health, tax and compliance pages are information with primary sources attached, and they say so.
Dates
Every page carries a visible and structured last-updated date. A date changes only when something on the page was actually re-checked or rewritten. Touching a date to make a page look fresh would be the smallest possible version of the thing this entire page is about.
Corrections
Found something wrong? rsb.baker@gmail.com. Corrections are made in place with the date updated. Where we have published something materially incorrect, the correction is noted on the page rather than quietly swapped.
Our open data is published on GitHub specifically so it can be corrected by other people: the Apple privacy-manifest SDK map accepts issues and pull requests.
Why publish this
Because the alternative is asking to be trusted. A statement of standards that can be checked against the pages is worth something; one that cannot is decoration.
If you find a page that breaks one of these rules, that is a bug, and it is worth an email.
Questions and answers
How does Baker Ventures source its claims?
Every factual claim links to a primary source - IRS claims to irs.gov, Apple claims to developer.apple.com, research claims to the paper itself. Where sources conflict, both are given and the conflict is named rather than resolved in our favour.
How is competitor pricing verified?
From each vendor's own pricing page, with the date it was checked. Where a price cannot be verified at source, no number is published at all rather than a figure taken from an aggregator.
Does Baker Ventures disclose when it is writing about its own products?
Yes, on every page a Baker Ventures product appears on, including comparison and roundup pages where a competitor is the better answer.
Does Baker Ventures use AI-generated reviews or testimonials?
No. No invented ratings, user counts, testimonials or press placements appear anywhere on these sites. The FTC's rule on fake and AI-generated reviews carries civil penalties in the tens of thousands per violation, and separately it would make the rest of the corpus worthless.
How are dates handled?
Every page carries a visible and structured last-updated date. A date is only changed when something on the page was actually re-checked or rewritten - never to make a page look fresh.
Baker Ventures. “Editorial standards.” Baker Ventures LLC, September 6, 2026. https://bakerventuresstudio.com/editorial-standards/