Editorial policy, research standards and corrections

Our job is to make a complicated purchase easier to compare. That requires a clear distinction between customer ratings, company marketing claims and our own editorial judgment.

1. Rankings are editorial assessments

The Hub Index and the order of companies on our shortlists are editorial judgments based on category fit. They are not Google, Yelp or marketplace star ratings. We consider specialization, service clarity, project fit, published evidence, process transparency and the usefulness of the offering for the project being researched.

2. Category fit matters more than company size

A large company is not automatically ranked ahead of a specialist. A focused provider may be the stronger choice when it offers a process, material capability or service model that aligns closely with the category. Likewise, a specialist can rank lower when the project requires capabilities outside its published scope.

3. We distinguish fact from evaluation

Facts include published service areas, materials, warranties, lead times, project types and stated processes. Evaluation is our interpretation of what those facts mean for a buyer. Our profiles are written so readers can see the reasoning behind the conclusion rather than being asked to accept a score without context.

4. Sources should be relevant to the claim

We prioritize company websites and first-party service information for current scope, then use reputable directories, trade resources and other public sources for additional context when useful. A source being public does not make every claim equally reliable, so we avoid treating unverified directory copy as definitive when the company’s own current documentation says something different.

5. We do not manufacture customer sentiment

Editorial scores are never presented as customer-review averages. We do not create testimonials, fictional customers or fabricated star counts. When customer feedback is discussed, it should be described in a way that makes the source and limitation clear.

6. Commercial relationships should not rewrite the criteria

The same category criteria should apply regardless of whether a business advertises, supplies information or has no relationship with the publication. A paid placement, if ever used, should be identified as such and should not silently replace the editorial ranking process.

7. Businesses change, so pages are dated

Service areas, ownership, staff, prices, warranties and lead times can change. Important review and shortlist pages include update dates. Readers should verify current project details directly before hiring or ordering.

8. Corrections are part of the process

If we identify a material factual error, we correct the page rather than preserving an inaccurate statement for consistency. Businesses and readers can suggest corrections through the business submission page. A request to change a negative editorial conclusion is not automatically a factual correction; the underlying evidence or scope must justify the change.

9. We avoid false precision

A score is a research tool, not a scientific measurement. Differences of a few tenths should not override project fit, availability, current pricing or a clearly better written scope. Readers should use rankings to narrow the field and then make the final decision from current proposals.

10. The final contract matters more than any review

Even a highly rated company can be the wrong choice for a particular job. Before approving work, confirm the exact product or service, measurements, materials, finish, installation, exclusions, schedule assumptions, payment terms and warranty in writing.