Our purpose and publishing rhythm
AIViewer helps English-speaking readers use AI for everyday learning and work. We focus on durable skills such as checking an answer, summarizing a document, extracting actions and evaluating an output.
Our target is one useful lesson or substantial refresh per week. We do not promise daily news coverage or continuous price tracking. Earlier news remains clearly dated in the archive.
What earns publication
Every substantial page must remain useful if its embedded video or external source preview is removed. It should do several of the following:
- explain a consequential AI development in plain language;
- help a reader complete a real task more effectively;
- place a creator’s explanation in a wider, source-checked context;
- combine verified sources with meaningful editorial analysis; or
- publish original testing, reporting, data, or field experience.
A page does not meet our standard if it only repeats a provider's claims, lightly rewrites another source, or fills a template without enough original value.
Original teaching value
A practical lesson should provide an inspectable input, a worked output, checks or corrections, and an exercise the reader can try. We choose the structure and length the task needs; we do not treat a word count as evidence of quality.
Fictional inputs and deliberately flawed examples are labelled. They must not be presented as actual model outputs, client results or hands-on tests. Worksheets and practice downloads remain accessible without an email subscription.
Accuracy and sourcing
- Specific facts, dates, prices, product capabilities, statistics, and quotations should be checked against current, identifiable sources.
- We prefer primary sources such as official documentation, product pages, public filings, research papers, and direct testing.
- We distinguish verified facts from our analysis, estimates, and opinion.
- If a fact cannot be verified reliably, we qualify it, identify the uncertainty, or leave it out.
- External material must be attributed. We do not publish copied or superficially rewritten work as our own.
Authorship and production identity
New pages identify AIViewer as the publisher and show how AI was used. AIViewer does not imply a staffed human newsroom or routine human fact-check when neither exists. The founder sets editorial direction and owns the publication; the AI editorial system can perform page-by-page research, drafting, source checking, implementation, and maintenance. A named human contribution or review is credited only when it occurred.
Evidence and recommendations
A recommendation must be clear about the evidence behind it. Direct testing, documentation research, a creator demonstration, and structured reference data are not interchangeable. Ratings and “best” claims are withheld unless a reproducible test record supports them. Our full process is described in the Evidence Method.
Commercial independence
Advertising, affiliate commissions, sponsorships, free access, or a relationship with a product owner must not determine our conclusions or rating. Material commercial relationships are disclosed. Sponsored work is labeled, and payment does not purchase a positive review. See our Advertising and Affiliate Disclosure and Ownership and Funding page.
AI and automation
AI tools are central to research organization, source review, drafting, editing, structured data, visuals, code, and maintenance. Each new page declares its AI-use mode and evidence limitations. Automated source checking and passing a build are not human editorial review. Before monetizing automatically generated material, our process requires a recorded manual review or curation of the actual content, including the examples and consequential claims. Our operating model and boundaries are explained in the AI Use Policy.
Updates and corrections
AI products change quickly. We show update or verification dates where freshness is important and revise material inaccuracies when we find them. Substantive corrections are explained on the affected page when context would help readers understand what changed. A source-check date changes only when the sources were checked. A content update date can change when a substantive example or correction is added. Overlapping pages may be merged into a relevant replacement; a new date alone does not make old content current. See our Corrections Policy.
Sensitive and high-stakes topics
Content about health, mental health, law, safety, employment, education, or personal finance receives additional scrutiny. We avoid presenting general AI information as individualized professional advice and direct readers to qualified professionals when a decision requires one.
Legacy content
This standard applies to pages published or materially updated on or after July 25, 2026. Older directory, comparison, and template content is being consolidated or removed from the public index. A legacy page without a current test record is not evidence of hands-on testing. The weekly evergreen direction and worked-example requirements were adopted on September 9, 2026. This policy describes the required process; it is not a claim that every older page has completed manual review.
External standards we consult
Our internal rules are informed by Google's guidance on helpful, reliable, people-first content and high-quality reviews. These references do not replace our responsibility to apply editorial judgment.
Questions or concerns
Contact [email protected] with a sourcing question, conflict concern, or suspected breach of these standards.