Editorial Policy
Who writes this, how it is sourced, how corrections work, and the full public list of things we have forbidden ourselves from saying.
Last updated September 1, 2026
Who writes this
Every page is written by Scooter M., an enthusiast. Framed by genuine interest in the category rather than by time served or credentials, because interest is the true description and tenure would not be.
There is no editorial staff beyond that byline, and no "editorial team" is invoked anywhere to imply one exists.
What we can honestly claim as experience
Google's quality framework asks for experience, and this is the part most affiliate sites fabricate. What we can legitimately offer:
- Documented specification compilation. Assembling published specs across a category into one comparable table, with a citation on every figure, is real original work that no competitor in this space appears to have done.
- Original arithmetic. Preheat curves, stored energy, effusivity, running cost, dough-ball weight by diameter. Computed, reproducible, and currently unpublished by anyone else in this niche.
- Reading the manuals. What makers actually say about maximum temperature, thermal shock and preheating, compared against what review sites claim.
- Live market observation. Checking what is actually purchasable, when.
What we never claim: having used, owned, baked on, handled or physically compared any product.
Sourcing standards
- Every physical or numeric claim carries a source, or is our own arithmetic shown inline.
- Material constants come from one canonical table, published on the methodology page and imported by every page that uses them, so no two pages can quote different figures for the same material.
- Third-party findings are attributed in the sentence, with the publisher named.
- Ranges stay ranges rather than being reduced to a midpoint presented as a measurement.
- Retailer data is labeled as retailer data, with the retailer named.
- No number on this site is sourced to another affiliate site's unsubstantiated testing claim. If an unverifiable review page is the only source, the figure does not appear here.
- Figures that are ours rather than a maker's are labeled as derived wherever they appear.
Claims we have banned ourselves from making
Publishing our own constraints is itself a trust signal, and it gives you something concrete to hold us to. If you find any of these on a page, that is an error and we want to hear about it.
| Banned | Why |
|---|---|
| Any testing claim - we tested, in our testing, hands-on, our test kitchen | We have not. This would be deception under the FTC's endorsement rules and it is the single easiest claim for anyone to falsify. |
| Any tenure claim - years of experience, long-time, veteran, seasoned | The site launched in 2026 and so did the byline. No tenure claim would be true. |
| Any credential we do not hold - chef, food scientist, expert panel, medically reviewed | Fabrication, and trivially checkable. |
| Review or aggregate-rating structured data authored by us | It would be a machine-readable testing claim contradicting the visible page it sits on. |
| Invented star ratings, review counts, awards or editor's-choice history | Fabrication. |
| Any hard-coded price in page copy | A price written into a page becomes a false statement the moment it changes. Prices render only from the live layer. |
| The bare 18x conductivity claim | It corresponds to no ratio derivable from published constants, and at least one maker uses the same figure for conductivity and for stored energy on one page. We publish all four ratios separately instead. |
| Best attached to Peel & Flame itself | The superlative may only ever modify a product noun. We rank the best stones; we do not claim to be the best site. |
| LocalBusiness structured data, an address, or a phone number | There are no premises and no service area. Inventing a NAP block would be a false claim about a real-world entity. |
| Manufactured urgency - hurry, deal ends soon, countdown timers | There is no deadline. Pretending otherwise is a sales tactic, not information. |
How commercial relationships work
Peel & Flame earns affiliate commission when a reader buys through a link here. That is the only revenue.
Commission does not influence rankings. Ranking follows the weighted criteria published in section 5 of the methodology, and the site regularly recommends the cheaper option, the option that earns us less, or no purchase at all - there are pages here whose honest conclusion is "preheat for longer and buy nothing".
We accept no payment for placement, no sponsored content, and no free products. The full disclosure.
Corrections
Report an error to info@peelandflame.com or through the contact form.
- We respond within five business days.
- Where you are right, the page is corrected and carries a dated correction note. We do not silently edit a page and let it read as though it always said the new thing.
- Where we think the original was right, we will tell you why rather than ignoring it.
- Corrections that change a recommendation are noted at the top of the affected page, not buried at the bottom.
How we choose what to cover
By what people are actually trying to decide, and by whether we can source enough published information to say something useful. That second filter is why some roundups here are shorter than the competition's - we would rather rank four products we can stand behind than pad a list to ten with products whose makers publish nothing.
We also cover questions with no product attached at all, because the honest answer to a lot of pizza problems is a technique change rather than a purchase.
Images
Editorial photography on this site is licensed stock. Where we do not hold a verified image of a specific product model, the card shows a licensed photograph of the product type and both the caption and the alt text say exactly that. Nothing is presented as a photograph of a particular unit, and no image is presented as evidence of anything we did.
Updates
Every page carries a real published and updated date. The XML sitemap uses those content dates rather than the build time, so a redeploy does not claim every page changed. The full cadence is in section 10 of the methodology.