Editorial Standards
How we decide whether a public page is good enough to represent WhenWorks
Every public guide should help a reader make a real scheduling decision, show who wrote and reviewed it, and stay within the experience and product behavior we can honestly support.
People-first usefulness
We prioritize helping someone solve a real scheduling problem over writing pages that exist mainly to capture search traffic.
Accuracy over hype
We aim to describe features, tradeoffs, and setup requirements honestly. When details change, we update the page rather than quietly letting it drift.
Transparent comparisons
Comparison pages should explain how we evaluated tools, what use case we are optimizing for, and where another product may be a better fit.
Clear ownership and corrections
Visitors should be able to tell who operates the site, how to reach us, and how to report a correction or ask for clarification.
Our editorial process
Topic selection
We prioritize topics that match the real jobs people hire scheduling tools to do: choosing a time, comparing workflows, reducing no-shows, and understanding feature tradeoffs.
Product-aware drafting
We use our own product knowledge and workflow experience as the baseline. Public guidance should reflect how scheduling decisions actually get made, not just generic productivity advice.
Accuracy and clarity review
When a page makes feature or policy claims, we review the wording for clarity and try to remove hype, vague claims, or unsupported comparisons.
Maintenance and correction
If a page drifts, becomes too thin, or no longer reflects reality, we correct it or retire it instead of padding it with generic material.
What we mean by “quality” here
A high-quality page should have a clear purpose, enough substance to answer the question it targets, and obvious signals that a real team stands behind it.
Pages that repeat another guide or cannot add a useful example, decision framework, or product-backed instruction should be merged or retired.
AI assistance policy
We may use software-assisted drafting or outlining during content production, but we do not treat generated text as the final source of truth on its own.
New and updated public pages should still be reviewed for clarity, accuracy, usefulness, and whether they genuinely help a reader solve a scheduling problem.
Corrections and contact
If you spot an outdated claim, a broken workflow description, or a comparison that no longer reflects reality, email support@whenworks.cc. We would rather correct a page than quietly leave weak information in place.