Editorial policy
What we publish, how we source it, and how we fix it
Linkeddit publishes reviews, comparisons and guides about a category it competes in. These are the rules that make that tolerable: real data pulled in-session, prices with dates, quotes attributed by platform, our own product disclosed, and corrections made in place with a note.
Last reviewed 4 September 2026.
The rules, and how each is checked
Every claim traces to something we pulled
A statistic, a price, a quote or a feature claim appears on this site only if it was fetched from a named source during the research for that page. We do not write from memory and we do not repeat another article's number without reading the original. If a fact cannot be sourced, it is cut or marked as something we could not verify, and that sentence stays on the page.
Prices carry a fetch date
Every vendor price we print was read off the vendor's own pricing page on a stated day, and the day is on the page. Where a vendor's pages disagree with each other, or with what other reviews print, we say which page says what. Pricing pages are fetched as full text, because a content extractor we used earlier dropped price nodes from two vendors' pages and produced false claims that we then had to correct.
Reviews are attributed by platform, never by person
Quotes from G2, Capterra, Trustpilot or OMR are attributed to the platform and the review count on the day. Quotes from Reddit are attributed to the subreddit only, never to a username, and we say when a commenter is a vendor. Quotes from published reviews are attributed to the publication by name, and we say when that publication sells a competing product.
We say that we sell a product
Linkeddit sells Answer Radar and Compete, which compete with many of the tools we review. Every review says so, gives an honest 'pick them if' section, and links to the vendor's own pages so a reader can check us. A review that only concludes 'buy us' would not deserve to be cited and would not be.
We never claim a capability that is not shipped
A feature is described on this site only when it exists in the product's tool registry or backend. The one standing exception is Google AI Overviews, which the founder approved as a fifth engine ahead of shipping; its pages say that their run data populates when the engine ships.
Our own measurements are disclosed like anyone else's
When a page quotes a figure from our Answer Radar runs, it says how many completed answers the figure is drawn from and which engines produced it, and it separates our own projects from customer projects where that changes the number. The definitions behind those figures are on the methodology page.
Practitioner register, no filler
We write the way people who pay for these tools talk about them. Short declaratives, the finding first, failure modes named plainly, and no throat-clearing. Word counts exist as a floor for depth, never as a target to pad toward; a page that is longer than what ranks and less useful has failed.
Customers never see our model ids or our costs
Pages name engines, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, never the model snapshot behind a measurement, and never a dollar figure for what a run costs us. Competitor prices are fair game and carry a date.
Corrections
We correct in place and leave a dated note. Two examples from the day this page was written.
Peec AI and Scrunch pricing, 4 September 2026
Earlier pages said both vendors published no price. They did; the content extractor we had used dropped the price nodes from their pricing pages. We re-fetched both pages as full text, corrected the alternatives pages, comparison pages and the affected posts with the prices as printed and the date, and changed the research rule so pricing pages are always fetched as full text.
Rankscale currency, 4 September 2026
An earlier alternatives post carried Rankscale’s prices in euros from an August fetch. The vendor now prices in dollars. The post’s description was updated to say so and the body keeps the August figures with their date, so a reader can see both what was true then and what is true now.
A correction never removes the record that something was wrong. If you find an error, the contact page reaches us, and the FAQ below says what happens next. The rules our own numbers follow are on the methodology page.
Frequently asked questions
Who writes Linkeddit's content?
The Linkeddit team, under the founder's byline, with AI tooling doing much of the fetching, reading and drafting through the same MCP connectors we sell. The sourcing rules on this page apply regardless of who or what typed a sentence: every figure is pulled in the research session for that page from a named source, and the source and date are on the page.
Do vendors pay to be reviewed or ranked?
No. No vendor has paid for placement, a review or a ranking on this site, and we run no affiliate links to the tools we review. We sell a competing product, and we say so on every review.
How do I request a correction?
Email hello at linkeddit dot com with the page URL and the source that contradicts what we printed. If the source is a vendor's own page or a review platform, we re-fetch it, correct the page in place, and add a dated note saying what changed. We do not delete the note.
Why do your reviews quote Reddit but never usernames?
Because the point is what practitioners say, not who said it, and because a review is not the place to pull an individual into a vendor argument they did not join. The subreddit gives a reader enough to find the thread and judge it.
Read the reviews these rules produce
Eleven AI visibility tools reviewed on their own pricing pages, their review platforms and Reddit, each with a fetch date and an honest 'pick them if'.