How we decide what runs, and what we do when we get it wrong.

This page is the standing policy every story on for(geeks) is held to. It covers what we publish, how stories are produced, where the facts come from, how they are checked, what happens when something turns out to be wrong, and where the money comes from. It applies to every article, every byline listed on the authors page, and every section of the site.

Editorial standards

for(geeks) is an independent tech publication written for people who work in the field — engineers, founders, product and security people, and investors who fund them. That audience sets the bar. A story runs when a reader working in the area would learn something they could act on: a decision changed, a number they did not have, a risk they were not tracking. A story that only restates an announcement already carried everywhere else does not run, however much traffic the topic is getting.

Three rules apply to every piece of copy on this site:

• Claims are attributed: every factual assertion traces to a named source — a document, a company statement, a filing, or a publication that did the original reporting. Nothing is asserted on the strength of the author's confidence alone.
• The stage of a thing is not upgraded: a pilot stays a pilot, a demo stays a demo, a research preview stays a research preview, an intention to invest is not an investment. Most tech-coverage errors are this error.
• The limits are stated: when the material in front of us does not settle a question, we write that it does not, rather than picking the more interesting of two readings.

Headlines are held to the body text. A headline that the article does not support is treated as a factual error and corrected the same way — we do not run questions as headlines to insinuate a claim we cannot make, and we do not use “may” or “could” to smuggle in a conclusion the reporting has not reached.

How stories are selected

Coverage is chosen on editorial judgment, not on what an advertiser, a vendor or a PR agency would prefer to see. We monitor company announcements, regulatory and court filings, research publications, public repositories, and the reporting of other outlets. From that flow, an item is taken up when it meets at least one test: it changes what a practitioner should do, it establishes a fact that was previously assumed, it materially affects a product or market our readers depend on, or it corrects a widely held misunderstanding.

We do not agree to embargo or review conditions that require us to submit copy for approval, to omit unfavourable facts, or to give a company sign-off over what we write.

How stories are produced

Stories on for(geeks) are prepared with the help of automated tools. Software monitors our sources, gathers the underlying documents and assembles a draft held to the standards on this page. Every story is reviewed by an editor. Most are published as soon as they are ready and reviewed after they go live; a story that does not meet those standards on a first pass is held back and reviewed before it runs. Anything found to be wrong at review is corrected under the policy below.

Editorial responsibility for everything published on for(geeks) rests with Sergey Kuznetsov, Editor-in-Chief. To report an error, write to corrections@forgeeks.net with the article link and the specific claim in dispute.

Sourcing, verification and fact-checking

We work from primary documents wherever a story has them. When another outlet's reporting points to an underlying source — a company's own announcement, a research paper, a court filing, a regulator's notice, a public repository, a set of published financials — we go to that source and link it directly, rather than citing the outlet that relayed it.

Primary sources first

Figures come from the document that published them, in the units and over the period that document used. Where a number has been converted, annualised, or restated, we say so. Where a company reports a metric of its own definition — active users, adoption, accuracy, benchmark scores — we attribute it to the company rather than presenting it as an independent measurement.

Corroboration and disagreement

Where several outlets cover the same event, we read them together. When their facts disagree, we say so plainly in the article instead of quietly choosing one version. A single-sourced claim of consequence is labelled as single-sourced. Where a story rests on another publication's original reporting, that publication is credited and linked in the body text, not in a footnote at the end.

Anonymous sources

for(geeks) does not rely on unnamed sources of its own. Where another outlet's reporting rests on sources it has not named, we say so and attribute the claim to that outlet, rather than repeating it as established fact.

Images and third-party material

Photographs and product images are credited to the party that supplied or published them, and press images provided by a company are identified as such. We do not present illustrative or promotional imagery as documentary evidence of a product in use.

Fairness and right of reply

We do not contact companies or people for comment before publication. Where an article makes a substantive critical claim about a named company or person, it carries the response they have given publicly, or says that none has been published. Anyone named in a story can send a response to corrections@forgeeks.net; a relevant response is added to the article and marked as an update. Declining to comment is reported as declining to comment — never as an admission.

Corrections, updates and unpublishing

Accuracy is the foundation of a reader's trust, and the honest handling of an error matters more than the error itself. Our policy:

• Factual errors are corrected promptly: as soon as an error is established, the article is fixed and the correction is shown with its date. Where the error changed the meaning of the story, a note says what was wrong and what the article now says.
• Substantive updates are timestamped: when new information changes the picture — a company responds, a figure is revised, an event moves on — the article is updated and the update is dated.
• Typos and formatting are fixed without a note: changes that do not affect meaning are simply corrected.
• Articles are not unpublished to settle complaints: a story is removed only where it is legally required, where publication creates a genuine risk to someone's safety, or where the piece is wrong beyond the reach of a correction. Everything else is handled with a correction or an update, on the record.

To report an error, write to corrections@forgeeks.net with the article link and the specific claim in dispute. Correction requests are read and decided by the Editor-in-Chief. We aim to respond within three working days.

Editorial independence and ethics

for(geeks) maintains strict editorial independence. Nobody outside for(geeks) — advertiser, investor, vendor, or agency — sees an article before publication or has any say over whether it runs. Specifically:

• No paid coverage: we do not accept payment in exchange for news coverage, for a review, or for a favourable verdict, and we do not publish sponsored articles disguised as organic reporting.
• No stealth PR: material supplied by a company is reported as coming from that company. Press releases are a source, not a draft.
• Conflicts are disclosed: any financial, advisory or professional interest of the editor that a reader could reasonably consider relevant is disclosed inside the article it affects.
• No gifts: for(geeks) does not run hands-on reviews of loaned hardware, and we do not accept paid travel, accommodation, or gifts of value in exchange for coverage.

Advertising, affiliate links and funding

for(geeks) is funded by advertising. Display advertising on this site is served programmatically through Google AdSense and its partners; those advertisers are selected by an ad auction, not by us, and buying an ad slot buys no influence over editorial content. Ad units are visually separated from articles and are never styled to resemble editorial copy.

Advertising and personalised advertising in the EEA, the UK and Switzerland run only on the basis of the consent you give in the privacy dialog; what that involves, and how to change your mind at any time, is set out in our cookie policy and privacy policy. Where an article contains an affiliate link that may earn us a commission, that is disclosed in the article, and the commission does not depend on the verdict we reach.

Who is responsible

for(geeks) is an independent publication run from Yerevan, Armenia. It has no parent company and no outside shareholder with a right of review over editorial content. Editorial responsibility rests with its Editor-in-Chief, Sergey Kuznetsov. Stories are signed by him or filed under one of the coverage areas listed on the authors page.

Complaints

Concerns about accuracy, fairness or a breach of this policy go to corrections@forgeeks.net. Anything else — including legal notices, partnership questions and privacy requests — is routed from our contact page. Complaints are answered by a person, not a form letter, and a complaint that establishes an error results in a published correction.