This Editorial Policy explains how IPTV Guidebook chooses topics, researches claims, distinguishes testing from desk research, handles commercial relationships, and corrects published work. It applies to reviews, comparisons, setup guides, troubleshooting pages, and other editorial material on the site. The purpose is to make the basis of a recommendation visible enough for a reader to judge it.
Topic selection and reader intent
Coverage begins with a specific reader question: what decision must the page support, what device or market is relevant, and what information would change the outcome? Before commissioning a new page, the site inventory is checked for overlapping intent. When an existing article already answers the same question, updating or consolidating that page is preferable to creating a near-duplicate.
Search demand and commercial value can help prioritise work, but neither is evidence about product quality. A topic must also be researchable, safe to publish, and useful to the intended audience. Pages that depend on unverifiable performance claims, unauthorised streams, shared credentials, or circumvention instructions are outside our editorial scope.
Sources and factual claims
Product facts should come from current official pricing pages, documentation, terms, support material, or other direct evidence. Market-wide, legal, or technical claims should use authoritative primary sources where possible. Every volatile detail—such as a price, plan duration, device limit, trial, refund rule, channel count, or app availability—needs a check date close to publication or update.
A provider’s own statement can establish what it advertises, but not necessarily that the claim is true in practice. When only the provider supports a statement, our wording should say “the provider advertises” or “the official plan page lists.” We do not convert internal click data, sponsorship status, or popularity language into a quality claim.
Testing, research, and evidence labels
Hands-on testing is claimed only when a real test record exists. A useful record identifies the device, app or player, network conditions, region, date, test window, content type, and the observed result. A single successful stream does not prove long-term reliability, and one device cannot represent every platform.
When the work is limited to official documentation, source comparison, or interface review, it is described as desk research. The site does not use phrases such as “tested,” “subscribed,” or “streamed” to make research sound more personal. Unavailable evidence is treated as a limitation rather than an invitation to guess.
Comparison and review standards
| Area | Questions the editor should answer |
|---|---|
| Plan and price | What currency, billing period, taxes, renewal conditions, and connection limits apply? |
| Content claims | Is the count independently confirmed, provider-stated, or unavailable? Are regional rights explained? |
| Device support | Which devices and players are documented, and does installation differ from simultaneous use? |
| Performance | What was actually observed, under which conditions, and what remains untested? |
| Support and policies | Which help channels, trial rules, refund terms, and cancellation steps are documented? |
| Value and fit | Which reader or use case benefits, and what trade-offs could change the decision? |
Comparisons apply the same criteria to each candidate. The conclusion should identify use-case fit, limitations, and the evidence behind the decision instead of relying on a vague score. A ranking is not permanent: a provider can move, be removed, or require a correction when current facts change.
Affiliate and sponsored relationships
Commercial arrangements are disclosed before the first sponsored link. Sponsorship may determine whether an eligible partner is considered for a commercial list, but it does not establish quality and cannot replace research. A company cannot buy a positive verdict, guaranteed placement, or the removal of supported criticism.
Sponsored links are labelled in reader-facing copy and marked with suitable link attributes in the publishing layer when supported. Writers and editors remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and limitations of the surrounding text. More detail is available in the Affiliate Disclaimer.
Corrections, updates, and accountability
Apps, prices, interfaces, policies, and service availability can change quickly. Material pages should show an update or verification date when current facts matter. Editors revisit affected sections when credible evidence shows that a claim has changed, rather than rewriting unrelated parts merely to make a page appear new.
Readers and companies may request a correction through the contact page. A useful request names the page, disputed statement, and supporting source. The team evaluates the evidence, makes the correction when warranted, and does not promise a change simply because a request comes from an advertiser or subject of coverage.
Authorship and responsible publishing
Bylines and author profiles identify who is responsible for the work. Editors check for unsupported personal experience, copied language, unclear disclosures, broken links, and unsafe instructions before publication. Original screenshots and images should not contain unlicensed broadcast footage, misleading logos, or hidden provenance claims presented as editorial evidence.
No policy can remove every error, but it can make standards testable. Readers can compare a page against this policy, the How We Test methodology, and the evidence shown in the article. Last reviewed: 28 August 2026.