ImageReverse Editorial Policy and Review Standards

What qualifies for publication

A page must address a distinct user task within reverse image search, face search, image provenance, photo verification, metadata analysis, personal image safety, creator rights, or reverse video search. The About ImageReverse overview explains how those tools and guides fit the service. We do not publish location variants, keyword substitutions, or platform pages when the underlying workflow is materially the same.

Research and review process

The full visual research methodology explains how we preserve files, classify matches, corroborate sources, and report uncertainty. Published guides are organized through the reverse image search topic library so readers can move from a specific answer to the surrounding evidence method.

1. Define the user's exact question and the evidence needed to answer it.
2. Map overlap with existing pages and choose whether to create, improve, or merge.
3. Review current primary documentation and record limitations or regional differences.
4. Build an original framework that helps the reader perform or evaluate the task.
5. Check the title, H1, description, slug, internal links, sources, and structured data together.
6. Run technical checks for one H1, valid routes, accurate anchor text, and indexable canonical URLs.

Source hierarchy

Priority	Source type	How it is used
Primary	Standards, regulators, official provider documentation, and published technical evaluations	Definitions, current features, policies, and measurable claims
Supporting	Research institutions, established rights organizations, and original methodology papers	Evaluation context, limitations, and specialist practice
Examples only	News coverage, commentary, forums, and user reports	Potential examples that require independent verification

AI assistance

AI may help organize a brief, compare coverage, draft structure, or identify questions for review. It is not evidence. Claims, links, product capabilities, statistics, and policy descriptions must be checked before publication. We do not invent tests, experiences, credentials, reviewers, datasets, or quotes.

Automated intake safeguards

Articles may arrive through our private Docs Library workflow, but receipt does not make a page publishable. The importer rejects unrelated topics, mismatched titles and headings, thin drafts, repeated heading structures, reused prose, duplicate-intent titles, placeholder language, unsupported capability claims, vague outbound anchors, excessive outbound-link density, and affiliate-style URLs that are not properly qualified. Accepted articles are assigned to an existing topic and drip-scheduled so the library can be reviewed as it grows.

Scheduling is an operational control, not a claim of freshness. The publication date records when the page first becomes public. The modified date changes only when the page is published or its stored content is updated; a batch draft-import date is never presented as a later editorial review.

Corrections and updates

Material errors are corrected promptly. Product workflows, privacy behavior, index-size claims, and official policies are reviewed when the underlying system changes. Readers can report a problem to [email protected] with the page URL and supporting evidence.

Commercial independence

Editorial conclusions are not sold. If sponsorship, advertising, affiliate links, or paid placement is introduced, it must be labeled clearly and cannot determine a ranking, claim, or recommendation.