How this site is researched, funded and corrected.

Who writes this

One person: me. There is no team, no contributor network and no ghostwriter. Every post on this site was written by me, and if that ever changes the byline will change with it.

My experience is narrow and specific: I've run an online business remotely since 2017, from more than 40 countries, as a sole operator. That's the entire basis of my authority here. I'm not a journalist, an academic, an accountant or a lawyer, and where a topic needs one of those I say so instead of guessing.

First-hand experience comes first

The rule that governs what gets published: if I haven't used it, paid for it, or broken it, it doesn't get written up.

• Gear recommendations are things in my bag, bought with my money.
• Tool recommendations are things running in my business, on my card.
• Cost figures are ones I paid, tracked in a spreadsheet, with the collection period stated.
• Failures are published alongside successes — the automations that died, the six weeks my writing quietly got worse, the laptop that failed with no recovery plan.

Where a post covers something outside my direct experience, it's labelled as research rather than experience, and it goes through the process below.

How researched pieces are made

Every factual piece runs through the same six steps, documented in full in The Research Method:

1. Frame the question so the answer could come out against my expectations. I write down what would change my mind before I start.
2. Source widely, then rate each source on proximity to the original claim, incentive, and whether the method is visible.
3. Verify every claim I intend to publish — opening the primary source, checking the date, checking the base rate, and actively looking for the strongest disagreement.
4. Gap pass: list what a careful reader would still ask, then either find out or state plainly that I don't know.
5. Write with measured, estimated and assumed distinguished in the sentence itself.
6. Publish with a visible correction path.

Where AI is and isn't used

I write about AI workflows, so it would be strange not to state this plainly.

• Not used to write posts. Every sentence on this site was written by me. I don't publish generated prose, including generated first drafts that get edited — I tried that for about six weeks in 2025 and the writing got measurably blander, which is documented in the AI workflow post.
• Used for research breadth — producing an initial map of an unfamiliar area, which is then verified against primary sources before any of it reaches a draft.
• Used as an editor, but only to identify problems (unclear antecedent, unsupported claim, buried lede). Never to rewrite.
• No claim, statistic or citation reaches publication on the strength of a generated answer alone.

How this is funded, and what that buys

Reader-funded, and only in two ways: course sales and nothing else.

Revenue source	Used here?	Detail
Course sales	Yes	The site's only income. Four courses, one payment each, 30-day refund.
Display advertising	No	None anywhere, and no plans to add it.
Sponsored posts	No	Every offer declined so far. If one were ever accepted it would be labelled at the top of the post, and I'd rather not.
Affiliate links	Not currently	The resources page carries none. If any are ever added they'll be labelled inline, and they will not change what's recommended.
Paid reviews or link exchanges	No	Declined without exception.

The practical consequence: a tool being expensive, cheap, or run by someone I like has no bearing on whether it appears here. Nothing on this site is paid placement.

Corrections

Corrections are made in the open, with a dated note on the post and an entry in the public corrections log. Silent editing of a factual claim is the one thing I won't do — if a piece said something wrong, the record should show that it did.

Typos and formatting get fixed quietly. Anything that changes the meaning of a claim gets logged.

Updates and freshness

Posts carry a publication date, and a separate revision date if they've been meaningfully revised. A revision date is only applied when the substance changed — not to make an old post look new, which is a practice I'd rather the whole industry stopped.

Where a post has gone stale and I haven't got to it, I'd rather it show its real age than wear a fresh date it hasn't earned.

Why the social growth posts name no providers

The social growth section covers paid growth services, bots and follower sellers. It deliberately recommends nobody.

Ranking vendors I haven't independently tested would be inventing an assessment, and every ranked list in that market is driven by commission rather than testing. So those posts explain the mechanics, the platform terms and the checks worth running, and stop there. If that reads as unhelpful next to a numbered list elsewhere, the numbered list is the thing to be suspicious of.

What I won't write about

Stated plainly, because the boundary matters more than the coverage:

• Visas, residency, immigration. Jurisdiction-specific, changes constantly, and getting it wrong is expensive for the reader.
• Tax. Same reasoning. I'll explain how to structure your admin so a qualified accountant can help you cheaply, and stop there.
• Investment or financial advice. Not qualified, not licensed, won't pretend.
• Income reports. They're marketing dressed as transparency and they make readers feel bad for no informational gain.

Reader data

No advertising or cross-site tracking scripts run on this site. Analytics are cookieless and anonymous — page views and scroll depth, which is how I know whether people finish an article. Full detail on the privacy page.

Holding me to this

If something here doesn't match what you see on the site, email me. Corrections get priority over every other kind of message, and they're the most useful thing a reader can send.