Home › Editorial standards

Editorial standards

Short, and meant to be held against us.

Every figure is computed, never typed in

The counts on these pages are derived from the dataset when the site is built, so a page cannot drift from the data behind it. Where a number would have to be estimated, it is not published.

We say what we do not know

Most products here have four facts attached: HMRC recognises it, who sells it, what its name says it does, and whether pricing is published. Their pages say four things. The alternative, padding four facts into something that reads like a review, is what makes comparison sites worthless.

No scores, no stars, no “best” lists we cannot support

We have not used these products. A rating would be an invention, and an invention that helps a page rank is still an invention.

Distinguishing a fact from a derivation

HMRC recognising a product is a fact. What kind of product it is, worked out from its name, is a derivation, and pages that use it say so. A supplier’s site refusing our request is a fact about their bot policy and is never reported as anything else.

Corrections in public

We correct errors and say what changed rather than editing quietly. The dataset is downloadable from the data page so anybody can check the counts and disagree with us with evidence. Corrections to editor@solutionspayroll.co.uk.

Independence

Outbound links may earn a commission and that buys nothing editorial. The detail is in how we make money, and the limits of what we will claim are in the methodology.