// editorial policy
How coverage is written
and how scores work.
SMT001.NET publishes opinionated editorial coverage. Reviews and comparisons are written to clarify operator fit, execution burden, and tradeoffs, not to simulate neutral feature checklists.
Review standard
- Coverage prioritizes fit, workflow implications, and cost-to-value tradeoffs.
- Articles are written from the perspective of ecommerce operators making decisions.
- Vendor claims may be considered, but they are not treated as sufficient evidence on their own.
- When a route is updated, the published and updated timestamps are shown on-page.
How scores should be read
- Scores express editorial judgment, not lab-certified benchmark results.
- They compress fit, feature depth, implementation burden, and pricing posture.
- A higher score does not mean the tool is right for every team.
- The written verdict and caution matter as much as the numeric score.
Scoring dimensions
Operator fit
How closely the tool matches a specific team shape, channel mix, and operating maturity.
Workflow depth
How much useful execution depth the product provides once it is part of the working system.
Ease of rollout
How difficult the product is to implement, own, and turn into a reliable operating habit.
Value for money
Whether the expected leverage looks defensible relative to pricing and team readiness.
Disclosure standard
Sponsored placements are not part of the current prototype. If affiliate links, paid partnerships, or commercial relationships are introduced in the future, that disclosure should be made directly on the affected page and reflected here.
Corrections and updates
SMT001.NET should update articles when product positioning, pricing, or major workflow assumptions materially change. The visible updated date is meant to signal maintenance status to readers and search systems.