Editorial standards

Event Tech News distinguishes documented product information, vendor claims and first-hand results. Buying decisions need that distinction, especially where features depend on a particular plan, integration, version or event setting.

Product facts and sources

Product explainers use documentation, release notes, original announcements and other identifiable sources. Where a fact is plan- or version-dependent, the qualification matters. A vendor’s performance, accessibility, security or AI claim is not independently verified simply because it appears in a release. Missing evidence is stated as a limitation, not converted into an assumed capability.

What counts as a review

Desk research and product comparisons based on published sources must say so. They are not hands-on tests. First-hand reviews should identify the tested version or plan, date, tasks and relevant constraints. We do not invent demonstrations, interviews, event deployments or test scores to fill a section.

Comparisons and buyer guidance

Comparisons should consider the job a tool needs to do, including integrations, access, data export and practical limitations. Documented features are not a guarantee of results at your event. Confirm current pricing, contractual terms and technical requirements with the supplier before buying.

Commercial separation

Sponsored coverage and paid directory prominence must be labelled. Payment cannot buy a positive review or a place in an independent ranking. Material affiliations, access provided by vendors and relevant common ownership should be disclosed where they affect a piece. A claimed listing confirms management rights, not an endorsement.

Corrections and updates

Use Contact for an article correction, with its URL, the product/version concerned and a primary source. Use Corrections for directory facts or removal. Both are free. Significant factual changes should be identified rather than rewriting a past test as though it was performed on a newer product.